Yeah it's all really odd.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
In other areas of the country perhaps. In Brunswick, where it happened, I doubt it. This happened 20 minutes from my home.
Thars so fecking tragic though… He defended himself with a fecking assault rifle.I'm a civil libertarian - from my perspective he was attacked by someone unprovoked and defended himself with the means he had available in a society where guns are widely available. I have sympathy for Huber and Grosskreutz as a default because I can imagine they were confused, though the latter was told by Rittenhouse he was running to the police, which it may be understandable to not believe him. I have to admit I am biased against Rosenbaum and the reasons for that should be obvious.
He should be assumed innocent and the evidence hasn't moved my needle too much. As I have said, his testimony didn't help him and the last few days have been a clusterfeck for the defence. Not sure if people miss these posts.
There should be a fair trial and the state are acting like dicks at the trial trying to get a conviction at any cost at the expense of truth and justice. Everyone of any political persuasion should be critical when the government act like this. Its Trumpian or Boris Johnson-esque.
From a lot of the testimony it sounds like Rittenhouse was there to try to help, he took his gun for self defence and he was attacked and used it on people who were causing a threat of death or serious injury. It sounds like at least a reasonable claim for self defence. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not see Rittenhouse as a hero but everyone who was shot by Rittenhouse was attacking him that night.
Edit: adding in political compass if anyone cares
This is where your perspective begins to differ from almost everyone else in the thread.
What sort of parents allow their 16 year old son to cross state lines and attend a protest armed with a gun?
She claims she could not locate him and was not aware of where he went. In fairness, I would occasionally disappear from home in my teens and not much could stop me. Parents work and have other distractions, not an excuse but reality. Granted, I was not crossing state lines for misguided cosplay ideals.
I'm flying to Kenosha with a bazooka to provide medical assistance after the verdict.
Did you also tend to bring the family AR with you?
Did you miss the last sentence?
Anyhow, I believe it was stated the firearm was in Wisconsin and then given to AB Kyle upon arrival. Could be truth or a lie, shrugs.
Yeah, I just think there is a very big disparity between disappearing from home, and taking a gun with you. If the gun was used to commit a crime, the the parents should rightfully be in big trouble.
This is the crux of the problem, IMO. You have not been able to look past this guy’s history to view this case objectively. Yes he was a piece of shit, but it should not be taken into consideration at all in this trial.
Don’t think anyone’s missed you saying it, it’s just that it has come across as you being very disappointed that his defence has been poor rather than objectively stating that maybe his defence is weak because he was possibly in the wrong.
This is what most of us have a problem with. Without the attendance of his assault rifle, none of these attacks or incidents even occur. He brought the threat. These people do not react the way they do if all he is carrying is a med kit.
People comment on things they have a lay understanding of all the time.
I think it's not that simple.
The Rittenhouse trial could be separated into segment.
Him carrying a gun that's legally gray area at best.
Him chasing after man for one reason or the other
Him being on the ground with people hitting him and trying to aim for his gun
Him shooting them back
Now, let's pretend that
He's wearing a Liverpool Jersey and coming into a Pub in Manchester with his smug look
Him mouthing off to a manchester United
Him on the ground with people hitting him and trying for his say.. knife
He fought back and kill a few.
How's him wearing a Liverpool Jersey, that although provocative and stupid means he's right to be lynched on the ground? How's him on the ground fearing for his life expected not to fight back?
Hence it's not a clear cut simple for me, as in various segment Kyle is right and in some other he's also wrong. It's very hard to come up with a clear cut yes/no. Stupid, smug, pretentious, yes... but would people die if they did not try for his gun? One could argue he could have run away, but one could also argue you don't agitate a man with a gun, that's stupid on both parts. And if this stupidity ended up with Kyle being dead does the whole dynamics changed? One could argue that if the United fans let him off and didn't provoke him further the incident wouldn't happen.
Now he might be a white supremacist, Rosenbaum might be a child predator, but past history shouldn't be the main indication of who's right and who's wrong in one incident. At least that's what I think the stance the court should take in this case.
My prediction:
Manslaughter at best
Slap in the wrist for technicality with the guns, but his killing in self defense would be justified
My take:
He should take some blame for the whole shenanigan that ended people's live, but is he a cold blood killer? Nope. I don't think he's really enjoying the killing in a psychopaths' kinda way like the Armaud case.
If Armaud shooter got off free, I'd bet if he had a time machine he'd do it all over again. That one is clear hatred for certain race.
The caf in a nutshell.
Equating a Liverpool Jersey to a machine gun is kind of pushing it though. If he walked into the pub with the Jersey on and an AR 15, now that would be a different story and any shooting deaths would he on him if you ask me.
Not in America it isn't though, that seems to be the issue everyone here including me doesn't grasp. The act of someone walking about with an AR 15 is allowed/legal no matter how fecking mad it is
Edited out normal for legal
Last edited:
I'm indeed not an American, but I doubt that walking around brandishing an assault rifle is normal. It's perhaps less preposterous than in most other places, but normal?
I'm also not sure carrying it like this, as a minor, is allowed in any way.
To your last point no one would have known that he was minor at the time.
Maybe normal isn't the word. I'm sure if we looked at videos from that night he wouldn't have been the only person carrying an AR15 about though.
Again it's madness and not something I think I'd ever be able to wrap my head around so I'll never wrap my head around the fact he isn't an instigator.
As a reminder, going into the final leg of the trial. this is what Rittenhouse is charged with…
COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life. Punishable by up to 65 years in prison with the weapons modifier
COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This felony charge is connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinniss told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries an additional five years. The jury might also be allowed to consider a 2nd degree charge for this, meaning they won’t have to consider it Rittenhouse acted with “utter disregard for human life” when he put McGinniss in danger by discharging his weapon in his direction.
COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Anthony Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.
COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This charge is connected to Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber. This charge carries a life sentence. The jury might also be allowed to consider a 2nd degree charge, which carries up to 60 years.
COUNT 5: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 60 years. The weapons modifier would add up to five more years.
COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting. It was not clear on Friday what Schroeder intends to tell jurors about that charge. The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rit...nsin-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26
COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life. Punishable by up to 65 years in prison with the weapons modifier
COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This felony charge is connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinniss told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries an additional five years. The jury might also be allowed to consider a 2nd degree charge for this, meaning they won’t have to consider it Rittenhouse acted with “utter disregard for human life” when he put McGinniss in danger by discharging his weapon in his direction.
COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Anthony Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.
COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This charge is connected to Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber. This charge carries a life sentence. The jury might also be allowed to consider a 2nd degree charge, which carries up to 60 years.
COUNT 5: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 60 years. The weapons modifier would add up to five more years.
COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting. It was not clear on Friday what Schroeder intends to tell jurors about that charge. The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rit...nsin-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26
Walking around a city street at night with a loaded AR on your chest is not normal. And according to the law he’s been charged with violating, not legal either.
I should have stopped at allowed then. If he wasn't a minor the act of carrying the weapon wouldn't actually be an issue.
Please don’t compare someone wearing a football top to an idiot carrying and shooting an assault rifle in a powder keg situation. The two aren’t even remotely the same.
The gravity might be different. But the situation remains the same.
Provocation isnt a justification for being assaulted.
I'm sorry, what? That was just a noise.
"Your premises" as in: a random car dealership across state lines?
No - this comparative situation you’re trying to paint is just absurd.
Anyone walking around with an assault rifle in the ready position with a finger on the trigger is going to get attention. More so if they’re firing it, murdering people in a powder keg situation like Kenosha that night. It’s just a nonsensical take to try and shift the blame from him. He shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying an assault rifle. There’s so many things he shouldn’t have done before we can talk about the others.
What's remarkable is that if I was at a protest, and someone was walking around with an assault rifle, I would be getting the hell out of their. Maybe others are more comfortable around guns, but I would be gone in a heartbeat. It's amazing to me that unarmed people went after him. Not blaming them mind you, I think Kyle is 100% to blame here.
Makes perfect sense. Chasing and attacking a guy with a long gun is never going to end well.
It's baffling the mindset some people have. To me it seems like this Rittenhouse kid got caught up in the bravado in a situation he really shouldn't have found himself in. He's culpable for that surely? Equally, don't bring a skateboard to a gunfight.
One does not drive across state lines looking to commit self-defense. He was looking for trouble and found it and now needs to face the consequences.
Well said mate.
It's comments like this that sound off. Whether or not someone believes Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, it's simply absurd to call it a "Kafka-esque nightmare." That's not the type of thing someone posts if they are just trying to objectively analyze the facts and mistakes of the defense and prosecution.
It's hardly some unknowable mystery why he was charged. Rittenhouse's own actions directly led to his charges. He chose to go armed with an AR-15 into the middle of protests where he would be perceived as a threat. At the best, it was extremely stupid and ignorant to get himself in that situation. It's not like he just woke up one morning and got arrested by "the machine" for no reason.
He's got high-paid private defense attorneys (unlike a lot of poor marijuana-smoking victims of the drug war of the last 40 years), massive media networks putting out a pro-Rittenhouse narrative, and a judge that is going out of his way to present Rittenhouse with a fair trial. Quite the opposite of The Trial.
Finally, it's not some situation where he was thrown in the slammer to rot with the key tossed into a lake. He raised $500,000 for defense, was out on bail, hailed across the right-wing media sphere as a MAGA hero, and was out and about smiling and basking in his newfound fame. A victim of a Kafka-esque conspiracy cannot post pictures like this while awaiting trial:
In short, what's happening to Rittenhouse is the opposite of what happened to K in The Trial.
That is a really weird hypothetical argument. Even if entertaining it as a comparison, the Liverpool fan would need to be brandishing a knife from the off.
Also, for me it’s as simple as if he had no gun with him (an illegal one by the way) then nobody gets killed, there’s not even a confrontation because the crowd does not see him as a threat and/or someone to disarm.
I suppose if you wanted to equate it to a similar situation in a UK environment it would be showing up to a highly charged protest with a baseball bat or similar.
Not illegal but certainly not normal and definitely threatening.
The consequences are unlikely to be as severe, which makes this case even worse.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is how it unfolds. There are other notable cases such as the Bernhard Goetz 1984 Subway Vigilante case, where Goetz shot four guys on a NY subway because he thought they were about to mug him, and initially wasn't even indicted, then later wound up spending less than a year in jail when the re-indicted him on an illegal gun charge. I think the max he spent in jail was 8-9 months. Unlike the Rittenhouse case, this was for an incident in which he wasn't even physically attacked.
If he is guilty of anything, can they then bring in those photo's of him being an right wing douchebag hero into consideration for the sentencing phase?
No. What are they?
His convictions for molestation and rape of pre-pubescent boys, allegations of assault of the corrections officers, as well as his behaviour there that night leading up to the incident
Rittenhouse will get not guilty verdict on the self defence aspect, even left outlets like YT have accepted same. Given the video evidence it is the right call for the homicide charges even if he most definitely entered the riot/protest with intention to provoke rather than help. Ideally, he should have been charged and found guilty of some other charge pertaining to reckless endangerment of general public due to his actions but I think even that is too complicated due to US gun laws enshrined as fundamental rights in their constitution.