Rittenhouse Trial - Not Guilty on All Counts

@Maxpowers_32: So now you're reduced to straw man arguments.

@LJS9502_basic: correct.

person think its total ok for cops to shot a dangerous person.

a kid answer a knock on a door with a wii remote. shot the kid dead the moment he answer the door.

oh it was the wrong house.

yeah wth the right is now. it not right. its extremist thinking.

us vs them. oh i dont knell down to ex prez god king trump. am a traitor...... called free speech!

Is he on trial for his life because of those actions or because he killed two people and shot another? You must separate the first part from the second. Does seem like self-defense.

The video going around is hilarious.

Does that also hold true for the rioters and those who are dead and/or missing a bicep?

If he hadn't shown up and acted as a threat, no one would have been shot.

It sucks and I don't agree with the protesters/rioters in their actions, but the fact is you need to let the police do their job. If the police are overwhelmed, well, that is shitty but not much you can do about it, and it is definitely no excuse for vigilantism.

And vigilantism is exactly what this was.

I hate the loss of property, of businesses, but it's not some kid's job to show up with a gun and protect that property. I can think of maybe a couple exceptions--if this was someone's home and their kids were inside, then I get it, that's a threat to one's life--but that's it.

Better to let these buildings get broken windows than to shoot someone.

....and explain to me why he needed a rifle he had no authority to use to "put our fires and offer first aid"? Really, I'd like to hear to fire extinguishing and first-aid capabilities of an AR-15 variant, because this is news to me. Could he have not accomplished this unarmed? What a wild concept. Oh yeah.....then he unfortunately wouldn't have been able to lay down those commie Leftists, eh?

Has it ever once occurred to you that he never would've needed to 'defend his life' had people not seen him slung with a rifle and became further enraged at him? Yes, perhaps he would've been bloodied and bruised in passions, as would others, I don't doubt so.....who would be ALIVE at the end of the day if they'd be goddamn men and thrown down with their fists instead of immature, impressionable pussies who thought they appeared the tough man, desiring to flaunt his new big-boy toy and newly accrued tactical gear around, and ended up killing people!

What an idiot, as is every single person who defends his actions.

@Maxpowers_32: @sargentd: it just blows my mind how some think people rioting and burning down people's property is totally acceptable. Like they get an absolute pass on destroying the city and threatening people, even fighting people. But will argue it's horrible for anyone to defend themselves, thier property or city from such destruction.

What is this world where being a criminal lighting dumpsters on fire and trying to roll them into a gas pumps is acceptable. But being out there trying to mediate the damage with a fire extinguisher condemned.

I don't get these people. They believe these people have the right to destroy and attack with 0 repercussions...

Love seeing the hypocrisy of people complaining "he shouldn't have been there" but all these people coming into the city to destroy SHOULD be there. You have to be batshit crazy to follow that narrative.

Show me once where I've defended the actions of the rioters. Don't construe my frustrations with Rittenhouse's actions as excusing the rioters, I'm not. They're idiots as well, but for 1) they are not the point of this discussion, and 2) they didn't introduce lethal potential into the equation, did they? And if they did, they are idiots as well, and you can show me their trials in the people they shot and killed. If you wish to discuss the rioters, and the utter incompetence of LE whose job it was to retain and restore order, create another topic for it. I'll be with you there. But this is about Rittenhouse, his actions, and whether they were justified.

In broader context, there's no way they are, they are only excused within the myopic letter of the law that ignores his stupidity in the bigger picture. You have to do that in order to defend this tool.

@JimB: They are dead because of their own actions. Two of three people shot were carrying concealed weapons and they were the rioters. During the summer of 2020 rioters killed 25 people which the media conveniently ignores.

And tell me: would they be dead had Rittenhouse's rifle not been brought to the scene? Yes or no.

I don't care about CC license holders, there's a large distinction between one who's had to take courses, who has had to register, and had people vouch for their responsibility in carrying a firearm, versus some wannabe dipshit who picked up one simply under the "right" that he could and walked into a boiling pot of emotional potency that was primed to explode. There is no comparison to be had.

What you guys are advocating for is pure insanity and anarchy. Why don't we just have an orgy of 2nd amendment violence play out in the streets, because the "right" exists for it to, and then (as I said) have the courts come in and break down the chaos and sort the corpses out afterwards, gathering the best documented evidence available to determine who was justified in the technicalities of "self-defense"?

Christ. Is that honestly what you are advocating here? If not, how is it not?

Ah, this case. The armed juvenile who defended himself against three former criminals, one of which was a child rapist. I haven't paid any attention to the trial itself. Anyone find a good link for the cliff notes/summary of the shenanigans thus far?

You and me both. Absolutely.

lol what could go wrong with this mix of fine qualities!?

*Honestly the judge should just throw them all in prison as a deterrent to future idiots.

He's going to get away scot-free, and unfortunately he's actions are only going to incentivize others because they can always claim "self-defense," even when that's not the case. Any sort of confrontation can be an excuse to use deadly force, no matter what. These types of people go out looking for trouble, and never realize that having a gun on you only escalates a situation and makes things infinitely worse. But of course in America, the person wielding a semi-automatic rifle is not an aggressor, even though that person having such a weapon makes unarmed people feel unsafe because they don't know what that person is going to do with that gun. The last thing we need is more untrained dipshits and militias marauding around playing soldier and escalating things that could leave people dead.

More like - what are the statistical odds of such a scenario even taking place?

Why did they not let Rittenhouse leave before they were shot as he was attempting. They chased him, attacked him and he defended himself. They caused their own deaths. The star witness for the prosecution , the third person shot who lived, stated under oath he was not shot until he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse's' head. The ones killed were responsible for their own deaths.

You know, I actually feel better about it when you phrase it like that.

Cheers.

Well, to be fair, considering gang violence and gun crimes. The odds are probably high in California, especially in Coco/alameda/San Joaquin/Sacramento counties. Lol

Would they be dead had Rittenhouse's rifle not been brought to the scene? Yes or no.

Rekieta Law stream has been on point and has had a different lawyers come on to talk about the case which is really cool

I went in the rabbit hole listening to his live streams while working. Hes been live streaming the whole thing. There's a lot.

Dont have a spark notes version (havent seen one) but this testimony by the 3rd guy who got his bicep flat tired, you know the felon that was conceal carrying and pulled it on on kyle while he was on the ground. He blew it and pretty much proved kyle was acting in self defense with him which was funny.

The rioters were out there looking for trouble, so goofy accusing someone of escalating the situation. I'm pretty sure the rioters were escalating the situation as they were destroying everything they could and trying to blow a gas station up by lighting a dumpster on fire and pushing it into it. Was that escalating the situation?

Kyle wasn't threatening any of these people, Pedo Rosenbaum was and even threatened to kill the kid before chasing after him and going for his weapon. Is what it is.

@sargentd: what you are proposing is anarchy. Strange, I’d always heard Republicans were the law and order party.

“Since the cops aren’t doing it, it’s justifiable for citizenry to exercise their 2nd amendment right, take to the streets with rifles, and gun people down at their discretion“.

Nothing but insanity and stupidity.

I don’t even need to disagree with you that Rittenmoron may be justified in his self-defense in such context for my point to stand. His imbecility may end up being excused under such myopic jurisprudence, which will be nothing but a laughable testament to how crazy our country has gotten. But IMO, in broader application, one abdicates their right to claim self-defense when they are the ones who introduce a situation of deadly potential that gets others killed when they needn’t have created that situation to begin with. Then their cries and whinings of victimization and persecution fall hollow.

But now you’ve changed your argument…..now you are saying people should have the right to kill rioters just because the cops won’t deal with them. Yeah, the motivation for your defense of Rittenidiot are crystal clear.

And a teenager with a gun who started shooting people made things better? Plus, considering no one had been killed at that point until he showed up goes right back to my original stance. That is, he inserted himself in a situation and made it infinitely worse. All of this could've been avoided if he had just stayed home. Why someone living in one state would give a damn if a 7/11 is looted and vandalized in another state is beyond me. This is why I hate militias, or any of these open-carry psychos. They think they're action heroes hoping one day they'll find an excuse to use their gun.

@xdude85: he lives on the border of the state. Kenosha is right next to the state line. He worked in Kenosha. I can already tell you know absolutely nothing about this case

@MirkoS77: people definitely have the right to protect themselves and their property from criminals, ESPECIALLY when there are no cops coming to stop them. There is no alternative at that point.

Also I'm not a republican, I'm so tired of you leftists calling me that just because I don't care for your leftist BS. I'm more libertarian if anything. But even with them, I think their party is ran like shit.

Then you need to read up on the law. First off most of what you said is completely and entirely irrelevant. That's like saying that a girl doesn't get to put on a short dress and walk through the bad part of town at night, and then complain about being raped. That's simply not how the works. Carrying a gun is not illegal. Going to another state is not illegal. Defending your life from a 36 year old man who hid behind a car, waited for Rittenhouse to walk past before jumping out and chasing him after witnesses confirmed he told Rittenhouse he was going to murder him shortly prior, also is not illegal.

Self defense from someone trying to kill you isn't being a vigilante. Comments like that make you look dumb.

It wasn't his property. Leftist bs? Universal health care, education, investing in infrastructure and business and health care, equal rights for all. Such BS.

@thenation: thread isn't about healthcare, if you want to talk about riots, police, 2A, self defense, stay on topic. And on this particular topic I'm sick of the leftist BS playing games trying to paint rioters as victims and a kid who was attacked and chased down as the bad guy, that leftist BS

It's irrelevant if it was his property or not, he didn't shoot anyone defending any property. In fact he was walking down the street when he was attacked by a 36 year old man.

It's Wisconsin v Rittenhouse, not Pedophile v. Teenage Vigilante.

No one is defending a pedophile.

It wasn’t his property, and I’m not a Leftist.

He was a pretty sick individual, convicted of sexual contact with 5 boys between 9-11 years old. Court documents showed he forced kids to watch him jack off and give him blowjobs. This was the man who threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he ever got Rittenhouse alone, then waited behind a car for Rittenhouse to walk past, and ambushed him, chasing him into an alley.

The reason people bring it up is because you people try to accuse Rittenhouse of being a criminal, being an instigator, and apply no personal responsibility to this individual who clearly had a nature of not giving a shit about what was right, or what was legal.

You should try to dig up the FBI drone footage of what happened, if Youtube hasn't completely scrubbed it yet. You know, the footage the FBI claimed they had lost for 14 months that would have put most the drama to rest.

@eoten: Nice rant

That doesn't make it any less true.

It could have all been avoided if the rioters had stayed home.

How dare you mischaracterize the ... Mostly peaceful protest.

Operative word is their. This was not his property.

FACTS are irrelevant. Testimony destroying the state's complete mismanagement of a crisis and subsequent C.Y.A. is meaningless to those people because their agenda needs to be protected at all costs. Having a firearm is not what killed two people and removed one from arm wrestling contests. Their threats are what caused actions to occur which is backed up by prosecution witnesses.

a 17 year old kid put himself in a dangerous situation he was NOT prepared for, panicked and killed 2 people. what prior experience did he have with dealing with angry, hostile adults? it was a very stupid thing to do, no doubt.

i don't think any of that matters much though once he feels his life is threatened.

It boggles the mind when you think about it, because you can clearly tell people know and understand that what Rittenhouse did was legal, and that the people he shot were not victims. But they cannot admit that, they won't admit it, and they try to push the narrative that this Rosenbaum was some saint innocently shot down by a 17 year old kid looking for a trouble. You can show them a video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse with clear malicious intent, and they'll know he's the aggressor, but they still won't admit it.

This is why they earned that NPC meme.

Yeah, that really seems like the potential impact of this case to me.

As far as the specific charges, people are correct that juries are supposed to separate the actions. His actions putting him in position to be in the place/time of the killings is irrelevant to murder charges/self defense defense just as the criminal histories of the victims are irrelevant to the charges. This is notoriously difficult for people and juries to do (just look in this thread at a police officer bringing up criminal histories in relation to the charges), but it is what they are supposed to do.

A not guilty verdict, which seems likely and proper at this point, has the potential to signal to all the 1/6 type loons out there that they can/should play vigilante resulting in more untrained people putting themselves in situations they're not prepared to handle with deadly weapons at the ready. That would be.... bad.

Again, this has nothing to do with the case. Rittenhouse could have been out for an evening stroll and been well within his rights to do so. All that matters is did Rosenbaum make an aggressive action towards Rittenhouse or not? The evidence clearly shows he did.

Yeah, people shouldn't put themselves in situations they can't handle. Rosenbaum learned it the hardway. It would seem Rittenhouse handled it just fine, only shooting those few who were actually a direct and immediate threat to himself. He couldn't have handled it any better, given the fact he was attacked by 3 grown men.

Aaaaaand this illustrates the concern quite well.

No, it doesn't. It is not okay to physically assault people. It's not okay to put your hands on someone else. Maybe if more people could have even a smidge of respect for others, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where a 17 year old is forced to defend himself from a 36 year old. Rosenbaum was the type who clearly had no respect for anybody, and felt he could do whatever he wanted, to whoever he wanted. That's why he's dead. He has nobody to blame but himself.

If Rittenhouse is found innocent under the law he will able to sue the media and Joe Biden for delamination. That would be something to see.

No he cannot. Also I doubt he goes far in life.

Do you remember Nichlos Sandman and his case. Same thing.

What was the result of that case?

I think each had a NDA since he settled with CNN and the Washington Post.