Again — while I'll try to ignore the first point (going there with the rifle), he still had an option of dropping the rifle completely if he was going to surrender. That's a huge bet, of course, but I'd still be willing to bet that people would unlikely go to shoot an unarmed man or to kick him in the head with a skateboard (which is, I guess, the only understandable bit of violence that I've seen in the episode — when you see a clearly antagonising character with a rifle that has just shot somebody, after all of the stories about mass shootings in US and in the world (Breivik mostly), you'd want to neutralise him as quick as possible).
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
It should tell you that 'letting the police do their job' is a nonsensical argument in this context. He had no less right to be there than the people setting buildings and cars on fire.
Only an American or someone who has watched too many John Wick movies could say that nonsense and mean it. Allowing teenage vigilantes to roam the streets with assault rifles is simply insane.
totally agree he’s an idiot. But looking at it purely from a legal perspective I’m struggling to see how a jury could convict him for homicide.
Yeh - this situation is a very American issue. Their idiotic gun laws are partly responsible.
Spot on, that country is utterly fecked, and I can't see any way back for it. Too much "my rights, me me me" bullshit above everything else.
It's quite clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A lot of good arguments have been made against Rittenhouse in this thread, but your posts are by far the worst. Completely biased, bombastic, and ignorant of the context.
No. You just don't agree.
He drove to another state, armed himself with an assault rifle, and walked around with that assault rifle at the ready position with his finger over the trigger.
If he doesn’t do those things those people don’t die.
Context.
If he doesn’t do those things those people don’t die.
Context.
Not sure if either of you live in America but the reality is a little different than the hysteria online. I'm all for way more gun control and regulation as we sure as hell need it but you should know
1) the AR-15 style rifles are not in any way "assault rifles" despite what media may have you believe. You'd think they're some sort of M-16 or AK 47 with how it's being discussed
2) America is huge and if you haven't lived here you may not be able to fathom the size. Police presence can only be dense enough to a certain limit and in a vast majority of the country side/rural areas it's not feasible to wait for the police in emergency situations.
You literally added the last part about finger over trigger.
I think those people/thugs also don't die if they don't smash heads with skateboards.
uh-huh
If this is the ready position you haven't been to the range have you
Curious that the “not an assault rifle” AR-15 was specifically named as a banned weapon in the assault weapons ban back in the 90’s.
Call it whatever the feck semantic technical thing you want - that rifle is ready to be used and he’s extremely threatening.
Also mind you back from moving those goalposts around.
1: "if I had my AR, I would shoot these people".
2: "shoots people with AR"
3: "???"
4: "self defense".
What did I miss? Is premeditated self defense a thing?
2: "shoots people with AR"
3: "???"
4: "self defense".
What did I miss? Is premeditated self defense a thing?
Makes absolutely no difference what kind of gun it is, the fact vast numbers of people think its necessary to have a lethal weapon amd that is treated as normal is fecking stupid.
that’s not what the evidence presented has shown. Even people testifying for the prosecution agreed he was not threatening anyone.
from what I’ve heard so far, all the intimidation and eventually attack came from the mob.
Is this argument purely based on the fact that the AR-15 doesn't come with a fully automatic setting? If so, that is incredibly weak. Aren't they similar to the military version in pretty much all other aspects than that? Range, precision, caliber, rounds in magazine, attachment options, etc. is the same right?
comment 1 was from an earlier incident. The judge won’t allow that into the court as he doesn’t see the similarities with the things he’s being tried for that took place in a matter of seconds.
Isn't threatening subjective? I find a fat 17 Yr old walking around with a rifle threatening as feck. 17 year olds are fecking idiots.
Last edited:
Yeah fair enough, and I know my perspective is all wrong as a European libtard, but I just can't wrap my head around self defense laws that you lot have. This scenario resulting in him being not guilty to at least manslaughter or 2nd degree murder is insane to me.
He said I want to shoot people and shot people, albeit a bit later.
Where his finger is placed is where it’s trained to be when you’re not ready to fire. Same thing with a handgun and keeping your finger outside the trigger guard and along the slide until ready to fire. “Ready position” would also be the rifle trained up on target of something.
He said finger over the trigger. When he posted that picture which literally shows his finger over the trigger you've then pivoted to 'that's not the ready position'. Why are people like this? Just say oh ok fair enough you're right. It's not hard.
Also I'd bet the majority of people have never fired a gun and are unable to tell the difference between that and the 'ready position'.
I don't but my son does and I visit frequently. I also live in a huge country with a lower population density than the US. We manage very well without gun toting vigilantes.
And not calling the AR-15 an assault rifle is just semantics as this idiots death count shows. You don't need gun control, you need a total gun ban. Never going to happen of course.
I'm from the UK. Definitely looking at the case (or trying to) from a US perspective. They're absolutely mental over there with their dumbass gun laws - it wasn't unusual for people to be walking around with AK15s on that night - Kyle was just another one of them.
It's absolutely mental. If I heard someone was walking around with an assault rifle I'd assume there was an armed response unit around, not just a random bloke.
Child*
Both of these points are really bad.
Speaking as a Russian, what a weird argument.
This is the real hypernormalisation thread.
The hyperpsychosis thread
Is this a plea for help?
Help winning people over to seeing what the evidence shows maybe
You'd think this is about Antarctica, not the United fecking States.I love guns , I own quite a few. I live in a murder capital that's currently under a state of emergency due to violence which has soldier checkpoints all around the island currently and having a personal carry as a business man is essential. I've fired an ar 15 style weapon man times. I see no reason for a civilian to own one especially as a personal carry. Yes they are not technically assault rifles and they aren't selective fire, But you can't put then in the same category as a pistol. You just can't. They are extremely deadly even in the hands of an idiot. They are a beauty to fire though, lovely weapon.
In the US, a large swath of the the country has open carry, concealed carry, or constitutional carry (ie..no permits of any type required to carry guns), which given all the mass shootings in recent years, is obviously a massive problem.
Wisconsin is pretty much somewhere in the middle. You can walk around with long guns (which the AR-15 is) as long as its not short barreled (which Rittenhouse's wasn't). They could try to get him for carrying underage or transporting across state lines, but since the Judge has apparently removed the gun charge from consideration due to ambiguity in the statute that could technically allow a 17 year old to carry a long gun in Wisconsin, that entire "he crossed state lines with an assault weapon" argument seems to taken off the table. The jury could still find him guilty on some of other counts.
Last edited:
That interpretation of “at least 18 years old” is beyond ridiculous.In the US, a large swath of the the country has open carry, concealed carry, or constitutional carry (ie..no permits of any type required to carry guns), which given all the mass shootings in recent years, is obviously a massive problem.
Wisconsin is pretty much somewhere in the middle. You can walk around with long guns (which the AR-15 is) as long as its not short barreled (which Rittenhouse's wasn't). They could try to get him for carrying underage or transporting across state lines, but since the Judge has apparently removed the gun charge off the table due to ambiguity in the statute that could technically allow a 17 year old to carry a long gun in Wisconsin, that entire "he crossed state lines with an assault weapon" argument seems to have been taken off the table. The Jury could still find him guilty on some of other counts.