Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[GGG]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I didn't blame the victim. Blaming the victim is me saying he should have stayed home and therefor was guilty. I think he was both innocent and showed poor judgement in going to Kenosha, but really, this falls a lot on the dumb Mom.

That’s what victim blaming is

If you didn’t go out you wouldn’t have been raped
If you didn’t go out you wouldn’t have shot someone

It’s gross making that comparison because in the second instance as you said he is morally responsible for these deaths whereas in the first instance there is no responsibility.

As for the case I agree with you legally not guilty.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I didn't blame the victim. Blaming the victim is me saying he should have stayed home and therefor was guilty. I think he was both innocent and showed poor judgement in going to Kenosha, but really, this falls a lot on the dumb Mom.

That’s blaming the victim.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

No that's the perpetrator. Thats the kind of greasy logic where someone breaking into your home gets hurt when you defend yourself and tries to sue with Lionel Hutz as their attorney.

In your example, the person who broke into your home broke the law.

What law did the shooting victims break, that Rittenhouse himself did not also break?

[The Big Chill]

The laws there are just F’d. If the guy with the handgun had shot Rittenhouse, he too would have been not guilty because he was defending himself.

So everyone shows up with guns and shoots each other in self defence and nobody is legally responsible for the outcome.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s blaming the victim.



In your example, the person who broke into your home broke the law.

What law did the shooting victims break, that Rittenhouse himself did not also break?

Rittenhouse broke zero laws. So the guys who attempted to murder him, and, assault him, broke the laws. You know, the convicted pedophile? In fact I think both guys who wound up dead had a violent rap sheet but I forget what the 2nd guy was previously convicted of.

Let's all pour one out for the convicted pedophile who attempted murder that night at a riot. I don't even understand some of the thought processes here anymore.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Rittenhouse broke zero laws. So the guys who attempted to murder him, and, assault him, broke the laws. You know, the convicted pedophile? In fact I think both guys who wound up dead had a violent rap sheet but I forget what the 2nd guy was previously convicted of.

Let's all pour one out for the convicted pedophile who attempted murder that night at a riot. I don't even understand some of the thought processes here anymore.

Shooting people is against the law. Rittenhouse got a trial, the other men didn’t. Rittenhouse also shot someone who broke no laws. There are situations where no one is legally responsible.

You keep mentioning a nearly 20 year pedophile convinction like it matters on the night of. As much as I feel no sympathy for a pedophile dying, that’s a red herring to distract from the idiocy of your position. You seem to bring it up whenever you’re struggling to keep your own logic straight, so perhaps you should re-evaluate your position instead?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

No that's the perpetrator. Thats the kind of greasy logic where someone breaking into your home gets hurt when you defend yourself and tries to sue with Lionel Hutz as their attorney.

I hate to have to resort to simple definitions, but...

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

https://www.google.com/search?client...x-b-d&q=victim


The guy is dead, so he is a victim. You can argue Kyle is also a victim, but it doesn't mean the dead guy isn't.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is not true. Holstered pistols, sure. But I’m not sure why people are taking to lying to pretend that open carrying an assault rifle is not a show of aggression, even in the US.

I honestly question if any of you have even been down to the US, let alone lived there. You sound like idiots, to be totally honest. Why are a bunch of Canadians pretending they know best about gun culture in the US? Go read another book.

Wow what assumptions. You tell me how it is to defend a store in a volatile neighborhood. I'll hang up and listen.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What law did the shooting victims break, that Rittenhouse himself did not also break?

They tried to kill someone. That someone being Kyle Rittenhouse.

KR did nothing legally wrong from the start of the incident to the end.

The analogy in all of this is not a rape victim wearing a skirt.
The proper analogy is a potential rape victim using her posessions to kill an assaulter.

If you're in any way shape or form angry at this verdict, you're a victim blamer.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

The laws there are just F’d. If the guy with the handgun had shot Rittenhouse, he too would have been not guilty because he was defending himself.

So everyone shows up with guns and shoots each other in self defence and nobody is legally responsible for the outcome.

Well let's use crowbar instead of guns. Two guys show up with crowbars minding their own business but then cross paths, insult each other and a fight breaks out. One guy kills another with a crowbar. Is that self defense?

I think in this case the prosecuter simply overreached. First degree murder, how can he prove that Kyle went to Kenosha with intent to kill? The charge should have been involuntary manslaughter or something like that.

[The Big Chill]

I think most people agree that he is not guilty according to the law. It’s the laws themselves that are the issue. Why would anybody want laws that allow untrained 17 year olds to roam the streets with rifles?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is not true. Holstered pistols, sure. But I’m not sure why people are taking to lying to pretend that open carrying an assault rifle is not a show of aggression, even in the US.

You said earlier the only reason someone would bring an assault rifle to a protest is if he intended to shoot someone. Do you think the BLM marchers in Dallas openly carrying assault rifles intended to shoot people?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Rittenhouse also shot someone who broke no laws.

For obvious reasons this is not the standard we apply to self defense, either legally or morally.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Well let's use crowbar instead of guns. Two guys show up with crowbars minding their own business but then cross paths, insult each other and a fight breaks out. One guy kills another with a crowbar. Is that self defense?

I think in this case the prosecuter simply overreached. First degree murder, how can he prove that Kyle went to Kenosha with intent to kill? The charge should have been involuntary manslaughter or something like that.

This should not even by anywhere near involuntary manslaughter.

There is no evidence that KR made any insults or threatened Rosenbaum in any way. He put out an dumpster fire.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Rittenhouse broke zero laws. So the guys who attempted to murder him, and, assault him, broke the laws. You know, the convicted pedophile? In fact I think both guys who wound up dead had a violent rap sheet but I forget what the 2nd guy was previously convicted of.

Let's all pour one out for the convicted pedophile who attempted murder that night at a riot. I don't even understand some of the thought processes here anymore.

You and a few people here sure obsessed with the past histories of some of the victims.

Victim blame much?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You said earlier the only reason someone would bring an assault rifle to a protest is if he intended to shoot someone. Do you think the BLM marchers in Dallas openly carrying assault rifles intended to shoot people?

Were they loaded? Then yes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

They tried to kill someone. That someone being Kyle Rittenhouse.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Self-defence is based on belief. It was enough that Rittenhouse truly believed these people were going to kill/maim him. A ruling of self-defence is not a guilty verdict of attempted murder on the other side. That’s not how the law works.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You said earlier the only reason someone would bring an assault rifle to a protest is if he intended to shoot someone. Do you think the BLM marchers in Dallas openly carrying assault rifles intended to shoot people?

Yes. I don't condone that either. The openly carrying of a firearm is an awful idea, increases tensions, makes other people feel unsafe, and dramatically increases the chances of gun violence. He was there to cause #### and other people paid the price as far as I'm concerned. He isn't an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, he himself and by proxy other people in the wrong place at a time of his choosing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

They tried to kill someone. That someone being Kyle Rittenhouse.

KR did nothing legally wrong from the start of the incident to the end.

The analogy in all of this is not a rape victim wearing a skirt.
The proper analogy is a potential rape victim using her posessions to kill an assaulter.

If you're in any way shape or form angry at this verdict, you're a victim blamer.

No, this is absolutely wrong.

Rittenhouse should not be compared to a rape victim. Rittenhouse as a victim SHOULD be blamed. He is morally responsible for these deaths. He was one of the main causes of these deaths.

By comparing him to a rape victim you imply that rape victims put themselves in situations to be raped. This is not true. Rapes occur generally with people known to the victim. A rape victim has no mora culpability in being raped. Rittenhouse took actions that led to these peoples death. Now the dead also took actions that were reasonably foreseeable to cause their deaths. Neither group should be compared to rape victims.

You are doing it for shock value and it’s disgusting.

There are two issues hear legal and moral responsibility. Do you believe that rittenhouse holds any moral responsibility for the deaths.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by GGG

No, this is absolutely wrong.

Rittenhouse should not be compared to a rape victim. Rittenhouse as a victim SHOULD be blamed. He is morally responsible for these deaths. He was one of the main causes of these deaths.

By comparing him to a rape victim you imply that rape victims put themselves in situations to be raped. This is not true. Rapes occur generally with people known to the victim. A rape victim has no mora culpability in being raped. Rittenhouse took actions that led to these peoples death. Now the dead also took actions that were reasonably foreseeable to cause their deaths. Neither group should be compared to rape victims.

You are doing it for shock value and it’s disgusting.

There are two issues hear legal and moral responsibility. Do you believe that rittenhouse holds any moral responsibility for the deaths.

No. His moral culpability ceased when he, without dispute and will all evidence to support, ran away and was chased down.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Innocent until proven guilty.

Self-defence is based on belief. It was enough that Rittenhouse truly believed these people were going to kill/maim him. A ruling of self-defence is not a guilty verdict of attempted murder on the other side. That’s not how the law works.

Self defence is based partly on belief, and partly on fact. It was not sufficient for him to simply believe that.

In a self defence case, the person who is the aggressor is not put on trial, but their actions certainly are.