Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse will be found guilty or not?

Wouldn’t be surprised if they throw him in prison for the rest of his life, without the possibility of parole a ticker tape parade.

@Demosthenes: “What do you think should be the outcome?”

Come on. Is this a real question?

He’s guilty. Many pro-police gun owners stayed home during protests and he left his state armed with every intention of using his weapon.
His age may get him a lighter sentence but he knew exactly what he was doing.

@product I think this is a valid question. There’s some that say Rittenhouse is a sinner, some that say he’s a saint.
(Shamelessly plagiarized Eagle lyrics).

Yes. Absolutely. If he thought he was just defending himself when he took a gun into the face of supposed danger, then he should have stayed out of it. He put himself into a situation he had no business being in.

He is guilty, will be found guilt but likely ill be given a lenient sentence because of his age, his childish demeanor and other circumstances. He was clearly being influenced by those around him but it’s hard to say how much came from that or from within himself. The adults around him need to be held accountable to some degree also. They had no business being out there in that capacity.

If anyone’s interested, this was a very informative article about Rittenhouse, the circumstances of the shootings, and the way he was courted by far-right groups.

The thing about these fringe militia groups is they have no backing credibility whatsoever. They deem themselves qualified to provide their “services.” Motivations are often questionable. Some may mean well but most are just extremists in disguise. They take in youth and indoctrinate them just like white supremacist groups do. Some of them are those groups. These are the people that scare non-gun people. These people scare gun people too.

“But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the mask away from your face,
For now is the time for your tears.”

Justice is blind.

And his mom needs to be charged as an accomplice.

Not sure. The prosecution brought forward a witness who said the same guy Rittenhouse shot had been mouthing off to him (the witness) earlier, threatening, etc. He said he was not threatened by the guy. But under cross examination he admitted he was an ex-marine who was with several friends. Rittenhouse was a 17 year old by himself. The witness admitted that had he been in the same situation as Rittenhouse he might have felt fear for his life by the guys antics. Several other witnesses said they supported Rittenhouse’s version of things. The guy that was shot, if I remember right, came up behind Rittenhouse and attacked him. Rittenhouse didn’t shoot until he was on the ground.

The real question is whether Rittenhouse was defending himself or not. If he felt fear for his life or his safety he needs to be found not guilty. If he went looking for trouble, he should be guilty.

Wtf was a 17 year old doing there with a gun in the first place? He’s also being charged with unlawful possession of a gun. What it boils down to is if he hadn’t been there with a gun, those men would be alive and the third wouldn’t have been wounded. So even he was defending himself he should be found guilty. He brought it on himself.

^Amen!

@smudges I guess by that logic you could also say WTF were all those people doing looting, burning and rioting? If they hadn’t been doing that, none of them would have gotten shot, so Rittenhouse should be found innocent. They brought it on themselves.

You could indeed say that (of a portion of the people), and that would be just.
But then ‘we’ have a thing called police, and justice system, that takes care of said people.
Not Wild West gunslingers like Rittenhouse.
That is called “acting as judge, jury, and executioner”.

This is one of those situations where a large percentage of the people out on the streets were there just looking for a fight. They almost can’t wait for either white supremacists to show up and cause trouble or looters and rioters to show up and cause trouble so they can justify their bad behavior in some way. The protests were against the police and that being the case they were somewhat attenuated which allows this behavior to progress to the degree it did.

@rebbel No, but by all accounts, Rittenhouse was not out looking to shoot someone. He had a gun to protect himself. The police and the justice system were NOT protecting the people. I’m not saying shooting someone is okay…it’s not. But if you are going to say “if he didn’t have the gun the other guy wouldn’t have been shot”, you have to also acknowledge that “if the other guy hadn’t been acting like an idiot, a violent idiot, he wouldn’t have been shot either”.

No, I get that; I action and reaction.
But if I were Kyle, and I felt I didn’t want any trouble, I would have stayed in my own state.
That would most definitely been protection enough.
Now it seemed, to me anyway, as if not much good could have been coming from travelling to a hot spot, armed with lethal weapons.

He walked, eyes wide open, into a dangerous situation and brought a gun to protect himself from said dangerous situation? Why didn’t he just stay home where he didn’t have to worry about protecting himself?
And WTF is wrong with his mother?

US law has an extremely expansive view of homicide. If you are the getaway driver for a robbery, and the clerk shoots your friend dead, you can be held responsible for aggravated felony murder.

I just don’t see how a criminal with a lethal weapon can insert himself into a violent demonstration, antagonize people, provoke a response, then use a criminally obtained firearm to kill two people, reacting to his antagonism and lethal violence, and expect the protection of self-defense.
Isn’t the whole point of “good guys with guns” that citizens, when they see a bad guy with a gun, try to take him down? Would this have been better is someone had just shot Kyle dead after the first person he killed? If Kyle had been shot and incapacitated by another criminal with a lethal weapon, are we really arguing that there should be no criminal charges? What if this were an NRA demonstration and 45 people were killed? Everyone was just a good guy with a gun, werent they?

Ugh, I’ve totally lost my point, but I hope the kid does some serious time. I have higher hopes, but that’s my most realistic.

And at what point do we decide the rioters were doing wrong? People bend over backwards to make them the poor innocent victims. They were a destructive mob. When do people get to protect themselves when they feel threatened? Or are they just supposed to cower until it is too late? Again, not saying killing someone is good, but let’s put it into perspective. I’ve heard Rittenhouse needed to stay in his state. Well, let’s look at that.

Rittenhouse was from Antioch Illinois which is about 20 miles from Kenosha. So to say he shouldn’t have driven 20 miles to be there is probably fair. He was in that area trying to help stop the massive property damage going on. Not his job, true, but at least he isn’t rushing to DO the property damage.

The first person he shot was Joseph Rosenbaum who is from Waco Tx. That is about 1140 miles from Kenosha. He was apparently there just to support the rioting, arson, and looting. He threw a brick at Rittenhouse and chased him. Rosenbaum was a known sex offender that had 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from 9 to 11 years old. So Rittenhouse, after being chased and having bricks thrown at him didn’t feel fear for his life?

Let’s move on to Anthony Huber. Huber is from Silver Lake WI which is, like Rittenhouse, about 20 miles from Kenosha. He apparently showed up to support the rioting, arson, and looting. He also had a VERY checkered past involving domestic abuse strangulation and suffocation (twice) and false imprisonment with a firearm. He was in and out of prison for about 3 or 4 years prior to this event. Anthony Huber, like Rosenbaum, was chasing Rittenhouse who was running away. One of Huber’s compatriots tripped Rittenhouse and while he was on the ground Rosenbaum kicked him and then, after unsuccessfully trying to take his gun, proceeded to start beating on him with a skateboard. That was when he was shot and killed. So now after having been chased, had bricks thrown at him, shooting a guy, having multiple people continue to chase him (as he was running away) only to trip him, kick him, and beat him with a skateboard…after all that he wasn’t fearing for his life? But let’s continue.

Gaige Grosskeurtz was from West Allis WI which is about 40 miles from Kenosha. He traveled twice as far as Rittenhouse to get there. He was an avid support of the BLM protests and made himself an EMT for them several times. That was his purported reason for being there this time. Grosskeurtz has a criminal past as well. 11/2010 – Simple domestic abuse for slapping grandma and smashing a lamp. 5/2012 – Burglary of home/Criminal Trespass to Dwelling/Disorderly conduct. 5/2013 – Criminal Damage to Property. Broke his girlfriends window and threatened her. 5/2015 – DUI/Posession of Firearm by Felon/Possession of Firearm while intoxicated/Endangering Safety by Use of Dangerous Weapons/Warrants. 11/2019 – Loud Noise/Disobedience to Officers. 8/2020 – Prowling. He was videotaping police cars in their parking lot. Please note this was about 1 week before the riots. Grosskeurtz, like Rosenbaum and Huber, was pursuing Rittenhouse while he was trying to get away. But Grosskeurtz didn’t have a brick or a skateboard. He had a gun. He was pointing it at Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him in the arm. Please note that he drove 40 miles to participate in the mayhem, brought a gun (while being a convicted felon) and was threatening a boy with it. So…Rittenhouse had bricks thrown at him. He was constantly being pursued by a violent mob while trying to get away. He was tripped, kicked, beaten with a skateboard and finally had one of the violent mob pointing a gun at him.

Really? 3 people with very checkered pasts, acting as aggressors, trying to physically do harm to someone, and we call the guy who was trying to get away the bad guy?

Can you, @seawulf575, just for fun, answer to my statement that it might have been a good idea to stay at home (talking about Rittenhouse here)?
And yes, the rioters and looters should have stayed at home too, but they didn’t.
Again, police could/should have taken care of them.

@rebbel Yep, he should have. As I mentioned in my last post. People have said he should have stayed in his own state. And I said that is fair. I said he was there to protect property which was not his job. But can you, @rebbel admit that NONE of this would have happened if it hadn’t been for the violent protesters? There would have been no riots, no property damage, no arson, no beatings, no shootings…if it weren’t for those that came to do exactly those things? And can you also admit that maybe…Just MAYBE…Rittenhouse was defending himself from those violent rioters?

@seawulf575 But can you admit that NONE of this would have happened if it hadn’t been for the violent protesters?

Sure, but they are not being charged, Rittenhouse is. The background of the rioters is so irrelevant that I stopped reading your post when I realized what it was about. This discussion isn’t about whether there should have been a riot or not. It’s about one teenaged boy who took it upon himself to illegally obtain a gun, drive to Kenosha, and kill two people and wound another. Period.

@smudges You stopped reading because it highlighted things you don’t want to be true. In every single case of someone that Rittenhouse shot, he was running away and they were chasing, threatening, and beating on him. Every case. In every single case of someone that Rittenhouse shot, they traveled at least as far as he did and in 2 of the 3 cases farther. Much farther on one of them. So the claims that Rittenhouse had no business being there go the same for the rioters. The fact that he was running away shows he was not there to shoot someone. The fact they were chasing after him and attacking him says they were the violent ones and he was defending himself.

Am I wrong on ANY of those facts?

The real question that SHOULD be asked is why Grosskeurtz is not being charged. He was brandishing the weapon at Rittenhouse when he got shot. And he is a convicted felon. Why ISN’T he being charged? He finally was arrested several months after the fact…for DUI. Not for attempted murder and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. And even then they waited almost 4 months after the stop to actually charge him. That is the question: Why are the criminals being treated as good guys and the kid defending himself as a ruthless killer?

@seawulf575 – Am I missing something? Rittenhouse criminally obtained a firearm, and decided he had the right to go into the middle of a riot and use it “responsibly”? I’m glad he had the bios of the rioters too, so he knew exactly who deserved a few shots of self defense.

Kid was being a vigilante.
He shouldn’t have been playing “cop”.

@Smashley “Rittenhouse criminally obtained a firearm, and decided he had the right to go into the middle of a riot and use it “responsibly”?” Sounds amazingly like Grosskeurtz too, doesn’t it? He is a convicted felon. Why is it you are so adamant against saying the violent protesters did anything wrong?

@seawulf575 – I couldnt care less what the dead people did wrong. There is no action that justifies criminal homicide. He had no right to the weapon. He got it illegally, and took it to a place he could brandish it with impunity. He got in some shit, and killed two people with the weapon he had no right to have. How do you commit justifiable homicide with a weapon you have illegally?

If a person without a driver’s license got behind the wheel and accidentally killed a sex offender, that doesn’t make it not aggravated homicide.

Rittenhouse has the same magical ability to know the history of the people he shot, before he shot them, that @seawulf575 has.

Again:

This discussion isn’t about whether there should have been a riot or not. It’s about one teenaged boy who took it upon himself to illegally obtain a gun, drive to Kenosha, and kill two people and wound another. Period.

@seawulf575 Yes, I can admit to that; nothing probably wouldn’t have happened had the people of color not felt the need to march against systemic racism.
As for Rittenhouse defending himself; he (had) better left that job to the cops.

@rebbel Let’s be straight here. It wasn’t people of color feeling the need to protest that was the problem. It was the arsonist, the looters, those breaking things, beating and killing other people that were the problem. And they weren’t all people of color. There is a huge difference between protests and riots.
As for defending himself being left to the cops, you might as well just let yourself get beaten and killed because the cops were doing a thing. They couldn’t. Because of the rioters.

@Smashley If a person without a driver’s license gets behind the wheel of a car and accidentally kills someone it isn’t necessarily aggravated homicide. It might be homicide but not automatically aggravated. Aggravated implies intent, planning, or some extenuating circumstances. If the person drive was an escaped prisoner for instance. If the victim was under 13 yo.

And shooting someone with a gun that you got legally or illegally may or may not be aggravated. If you shoot when your life is threatened it starts to fall into self-defense. And as you can see (if you look with honest eyes) Rittenhouse was trying to get away from people, not rushing to shoot them. He only shot as a last resort. Kinda hard to prove “aggravated” when the shooter is on the ground being kicked and beaten with a skateboard.

@smudges Actually, this discussion is about whether or not Rittenhouse will be found guilty. And whether you like it or not, all the stuff I have been talking about plays a role. You only want to pick and choose what led up to the shooting. You don’t want to talk about all the evidence and all the players and their actions. You only want a small piece of the puzzle to base the entire thing on.

If you were walking down the street with a gun on your hip and suddenly a violent mob starts chasing you and attacking you and pointing their guns at you and you shoot, should we just look at you and say you were carrying a gun when you didn’t need to and you shot some people so you should be guilty of murder? That is the logic you are applying. Forget everything except a few small facts in the entire episode and convict you on those.

@seawulf575 – I’m just basing “aggravated” on the totality of american legal precident, and its not really important for the discussion. It tends to mean “while committing another crime.” For a driver, not a 13 year old, who would fall under different laws, the first crime was driving the car illegally, the next crime was the homicide. I’ll let juries decide degrees.

As far as Rittenhouse goes, you have still dodged the question. How can you commit justifiable homicide with a weapon you had illegally? You weren’t justified in possessing the gun, how does it become justified to kill with it?

This conversation reminds me of George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin. Poor George Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Trayvon Martin and so therefore, ,had to kill him. Well if George Zimmerman never got out of his car and decided to be a vigilante, he never would have had an altercation with Martin.

@seawulf I see your point, and testimony isn’t quite convincing that Rittenhouse was the aggressor.
I guess we’ll see. It was a confusing time.

I read the headline of testimony that Rittenhouse shot at a guy after the guy put his hands up in surrender.

It appears to me the prosecution is falling apart completely.

Not guilty. Under oath the person whose arm was shot admitted pulling his gun on Kyle first.

*ahem – does the fact that Rittenhouse commited a felony to obtain this weapon have no relevance? How did we all get lost on how bad someone deserved to die, and not that a felon took the object of his felony into a place he’d have the highest probability of committing more felonies, which are the only things he can discharge, being a felon with a feloniously obtained weapon?

What legal doctrine am I missing that says you have a right to self defense with any illegally obtained weapon you happen to have loaded and on your person? Would it have been easier to see if he had a flamethrower? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here people.

But, but he had a MEDICAL KIT with him! Doesn’t that count for something?

^^^ Munchausen’s??

@Smashley Those would be separate charges. Those charges could have steep consequences. The right to self defense is not retracted of someone defends themself with an illegal weapon. Think of it like getting pulled over for speeding and the officer sees you have expired plates. It’s a separate offense.

We could all rehash every detail here, over and over, but the final answer is up to the jury (and appeal, if there’s an appeal, if they’re found guilty), so it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

@Blackwater_Park. Isn’t it like going to the very worst part of town where there is a murder every day, and you arm yourself with an A-K. You have no reason whatsoever to be there, but you go there just daring someone to look at you wrong.

He’s a far right extremist murderer. He’s old enough for the draft, or to enlist in the service and go to war, he’s old enough to pay for his crime. Screw him.

@Blackwater_Park – So you agree with the flamethrower remark? If it had been a fully automatic weapon with attached grenade launcher? He wasn’t allowed to have it, how is using it in self defense a legal argument?

Every other part of the law, you have responsibility for the consequences of your decision to violate the law, like driving drunk or cooking meth, even if the outcome wasnt your intent. He committed a felony by obtaining the weapon, and continued to commit a felony every second he brandished the gun. He was committing a felony when being chased, he committed felonies with every pull of the trigger, no matter his intent or legitimate fear. How can firing a bullet be a felony, but that same bullet striking a person and killing them is fine?

@Smashley No, I don’t. His illegal possession of that weapon is not so far out of line as something like a flamethrower or a bazooka that nobody is allowed to have. An AR being illegal for him was more of a technicality as he is just outside of being old enough. It’s not uncommon for people to allow their children to use firearms under supervision. An AR is incredibly common and most people who want one can get one. It’s night and day between this situation and the one you’re describing. Even then, those would again be treated as separate offenses.

@chyna Yes. It was very much like that IMO.

@Blackwater_Park – ok.. well.. I guess I understand. I suppose I’m just at a loss and don’t want to admit it. I guess I just always thought that illegal possession and straw man purchase of a weapon able to kill >10 people in <10 seconds was more than a speeding ticket. If it really is a “technicality”… well, fuck us all.

@jca2 “Well if George Zimmerman never got out of his car and decided to be a vigilante, he never would have had an altercation with Martin”. But Martin had committed the serious offense, of wearing a hoodie while Black. Can you honestly compare that, to – oh I don’t know. A misdemeanor like murdering two people?

@Nomore_lockout It’s interesting you bring up the Trayvon Martin case because there are some intriguing similarities between the two. But before you can have an honest view of that, you have to lose the rhetoric. George Zimmerman got out of his car and was following Martin. Not to kill him, just to see where he was going. There had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood and he was part of a neighborhood watch. And despite the negative painting of the events, most of those burglaries were committed by hoodie wearing blacks. So right off the bat, you are trying to distort things to make a narrative.

But we can look farther. In comparison of this case with the Kenosha case, someone was following someone else. In the Martin case, it was a quiet neighborhood. In Kenosha, it was a violent riot. In Florida it was Zimmerman following Martin. He wasn’t approaching him or threatening him, just following. In the Kenosha case, you had violent people physically chasing and threatening someone. In Florida, Martin was walking away and eventually tried and succeeded in eluding the guy following him. In Kenosha, the mob was trying to surround and hurt Rittenhouse who was trying to run away. In Florida, when he could no longer see Martin, Zimmerman turned around and went back to his car. In Kenosha, when Rittenhouse shot one person he had to get past progressively more and more people who were more and more violent and threatening. In Florida, once he was away safely, Martin then turned around to sneak up on Zimmerman and proceeded to beat him. In both cases, the person with the gun was NOT the instigator of the violence. In both cases, the person with the gun was physically assaulted repeatedly. In both cases, as a last resort the person with the gun used it to repel the attacks.

And in both cases, the media tried to repaint the series of events to make the person getting beat, the bad guy and the ones doing the beating, the heroes.

@seawulf575: In the Trayvon Martin case, when George Zimmerman called it in to 911, didn’t the 911 dispatcher tell him not to get out of his car?

Rittenhouse created his own private violence. He created it. And his mom is an asshole.

@jca2 Yep. And he didn’t. But then in Kenosha, wasn’t there a police ordered curfew that EVERYONE was ignoring? But my point behind the difference there is that watching someone or even following them is FAR less threatening that charging at someone, throwing things at them or physically beating them. Isn’t that a true statement? And the other point between the comparison: Martin had gotten away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman was starting back to his car. It wasn’t until Martin snuck up behind him and started beating him that Zimmerman drew his gun and shot him. Imagine the scene in Kenosha if Rittenhouse was just being followed and he got away from his follower. He would have gotten to safety and there wouldn’t have been any issues. We know that because that is what he was doing. It was only when his pursuers became a threat that he shot. Rosenbaum was charging Rittenhouse and he threw a brick in a bag at him and kept coming. That was when he got shot. Huber (and someone else) were trying to surround Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse continued to try getting away. Someone tripped him and Huber began kicking him and beating him with a skateboard. That was when Rittenhouse shot. Grosskruetz was chasing after Rittenhouse and drew a gun threatening to shoot. That was when Rittenhouse shot. The common theme there is that he was trying to get away and only shot when he felt his life was in danger. Kinda like Zimmerman.

@seawulf575: My point about Zim is that there was no reason for him to get out of the car, where he was protected. We could go round and round with this discussion, but as far as Zim goes, if he never got out of the car (as per the instructions from the dispatcher), there would never have been an altercation in the first place.

They both put themselves in danger, deliberately and other people died because of it. Damn that toxic male ego.

@Dutchess_III: Yes, all that testosterone!

On Court TV now, they’re saying you can’t provoke an attack and then claim self defense. They’re looking at his conduct and whether it was unlawful.

Excellent point. Keep us updated @jca2.

@jca2 So you would agree then that if the rioters hadn’t been causing violence and destruction and were obeying the curfew as the police told them to, then none of this would have happened, right?

Nobody is saying the rioters were somehow in the right. They weren’t. Rittenhouse was wronger tho.

I would agree that if the rioters were causing violence and destruction, they would have and should have been dealt with solely by the law enforcement that was trained to deal with them, @seawulf575.

This isn’t the wild west or the old south. We don’t go out and shoot people or hang people as a vigilante. That is what the law is for.

There is also an outfit known as the National Guard, and State Police units. Who are trained and equiped to respond to those situations. I’m pretty confident that they won’t need help from some teenage kid playing Army.

@jca2 Now you are dodging. You just said that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car like the police said to do then none of the rest could have happened. So if the rioters had obeyed the curfew like the police said to do then none of the rest could have happened. Right? It is the exact same scenario, exact same cause/effect logic. To try defending the rioters when you have already shown that is your thinking is entirely hypocritical. Either following what the police said was the cause or it wasn’t. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t say it was wrong for Zimmerman but okay for rioters/looters/arsonists/thugs. Either both were the root of the problem or neither was.

And for all of you that say that Rittenhouse didn’t need to be there, that the police or National Guard, or State Police didn’t need any help and could control everything, let me remind you that $50M in damage was done to the town of Kenosha and the police, state police and national guard WERE there. That doesn’t mean that Rittenhouse was a make or break contributor to stopping the violence, but it does mean that there were many citizens that were trying to defend their property, businesses, etc from the insane mob. One citizen was beaten and had his jaw broken in three places by at least 7 rioters. Why? Because he dared to try stopping them from burning a historical building. At some point you all need to step back from your hatred of anything right of communism to see how insane, violent, and destructive the actions of the mob were. I know you won’t because, just like @jca2, that would mean you’d have to consider the fact that Rittenhouse wasn’t some crazy gun-toting fool on a testosterone trip, who went there with the sole purpose of shooting some lefties. He might actually have been legitimately attacked by a violent mob and he defended himself. But don’t open your minds…that would hurt the narrative.

@seawulf575: Vigilante justice is wrong – whether from George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse. It’s wrong, uncalled for, unnecessary, causes more problems than it helps. George Zimmerman had no reason to confront Martin and Kyle Rittenhouse had no reason to go out and start shit with his gun. These vigilantes go out, start shit, kill people and then cry like little bitches when they’re in court.

If someone is defending their property, for example a store owner trying to stop looters, that’s one thing. If someone like Zim or Rittenhouse goes out with their gun and thinks they’re helping, they’re not.

@jca2 Were they not standing in front of a car dealership to deter looting? I don’t think the dealership asked them but I don’t see the vigilante justice here. I agree that it was stupid for him to be out there but the video captured kind of points the instigation the other way. Rittenhouse and those with him began to be heckled when they put out a fire started by the mob posing as “protesters.” I do not believe that most of those people were there for any protest they were there for the spectacle and to cause trouble. The Rosenbaum guy was extremely aggressive and obtuse. He was clearly looking for a fight. He is also a convicted sex offender and had battery charges. These were not all innocent protesters.

Would those prior convictions be any justified reason to off him (had Rittenhouse known of them before)?

The prior convictions are relevant only if they help establish Rosenbaum (or the others) as the instigator. Otherwise they are completely irrelevant. It doesn’t suddenly become legal to kill someone because they were a criminal. Rittenhouse wasn’t an agent of “social cleansing”.

@jca2 You are still dodging. If the rioters were not rioting, if they all obeyed the curfew and went home at dark, would any of this happened?

@rebbel No but that and the video showing Rosenbaum heckling the people who were putting out the fire he set paints a picture of who he is and what they were doing there that night.

@seawulf575: I’m not dodging. I said above vigilante justice is wrong. No matter what Rittenhouse thinks of the goings-on, he should not have been out playing tough guy with his gun.

Spot on @jca2.

@jca2 You are dodging. You said that if Zimmerman had followed the police orders then none of the subsequent actions would have occurred. Fair enough. But by that same logic, wouldn’t you agree that if the rioters weren’t rioting and followed the police order then none of the subsequent actions would have occurred? Answer THAT question. Don’t answer some other question, don’t try to justify their actions. Stop dodging and answer THAT question.

Vigilante justice is wrong, @seawulf575. That’s all.

@seawulf575 You seem to support vigilantism. You can’t let people shoot others willy nilly. Look at the Ahmaud Arbery shooting. 3 white men thought a black man, Ahmaud, was a burglar. So they chased him down and killed him. They were wrong. He was a jogger. If we all took up arms over conceived injustices lots of innocent people would be dead, and people would be in prison for acting on impulse.

@seawulf575: Apparently I need to break down my feelings for you in a very basic way so you can understand what I keep trying to tell you.

The protesters had the right to be there. They had the right according to the Constitution, to protest. Kyle RIttenhouse had the right to join them, if he wanted to protest. I am aware that many of the protesters were looting and burning buildings down, all across the country. Whether that falls under “protesting” is a matter of debate. I was not one who felt that looting stores and burning down buildings is part of “protesting.” Some might agree with me there, some might not.

If looting and burning down buildings is considered illegal, the cops should be arresting people for it, and of course they’re innocent until proven guilty, and they would go through the justice system. If the cops were overwhelmed, then the big guns are called in – the National Guard. They’re prepared for that, they’re trained for that, they get paid for that. It’s not up to teenage Kyle Rittenhouse with his gun to be the Judge and the Jury, and the Executioner. That’s not part of Kyle Rittenhouse’s job description.

So again, for the umpteenth time, vigilante justice is wrong.

Ditto @jca2. That’s exactly what I have been trying to get across. Yes, rioting and looting are wrong and that type of behavior should be dealt with harshly if required. But that still does not, and it never will, justify some punk kid going out and playing “Let’s go kill somebody!” He is just as much of a scumbag as the rioters. I don’t really feel I have to say this, but there is something more than garden variety moral outrage that underpins conservatives trying to make this ass clown a hero or martyr. I will say no more.

@jca2 The question isn’t whether vigilantism is wrong or not. YOU made the “1st wrong” idea with Zimmerman. I’m just asking you if it applies to the rioters as well. But you can’t even bring yourself to admit rioting is wrong. You have to question if looting and arson are crimes or if they are protesting. AND you entirely sidestep the question. Since the police ordered a curfew, if the loving protesters had actually obeyed it, would any of the murders happened? You cannot bring yourself to actually admit it. You want “obey-the-police” to be the cause of Zimmerman, but you just can’t get there with Rittenhouse. You are a hopeless case. Let me ask…why do you hate Rittenhouse? I mean you are questioning whether looting and arson and assault are illegal…you are bending over backwards for that. But you are adamant against Rittenhouse. Why hate him so much. I mean if looting and arson and assault are legal, then why isn’t owning a gun? Grosskreutz had a gun illegally and was threatening Rittenhouse with it. But you are defending him. So it isn’t guns. It really isn’t vigilantism. You just plain hate Rittenhouse. Why?

@chyna I don’t support vigilantism. But you are all assigning that to Rittenhouse when, by all accounts, he was just there to help protect people and businesses from rioters and looters and thugs that would gang up on and beat civilians. You all seem to support looting and arson and assault. Why is that? @jca2 can’t even admit that if the protesters hadn’t been so out of control none of this would have happened. You can’t either, apparently.

As for the Ahmaud Arbrey I don’t know all the details, but I will say that what I have seen on videos make me believe that those that attacked him should get the death penalty. Yes, I’m for the death penalty as well. They weren’t protecting themselves. To compare it to the Rittenhouse case, I would put them in the out of control, lawless rioters…not Rittenhouse. They were running around doing whatever they wanted to do…ganging up on and attacking someone they felt had somehow wronged them or who they just felt they could bully and beat without much chance of losing. You don’t see that, I’m sure. But look at the other link I posted…the one where the rioters beat the civilian. A 70 year old that was just trying to protect a historic building was ganged up on by 12 rioters who beat him senseless and broke his jaw in 3 places. By your terms and your examples, he was a vigilante and had it coming. I really think you need to reflect on that for a few minutes to re-evaluate your views.

@seawulf575 I feel that @jca2 admitted just that.
“I am aware that many of the protesters were looting and burning buildings down, all across the country. Whether that falls under “protesting” is a matter of debate. I was not one who felt that looting stores and burning down buildings is part of “protesting.” Some might agree with me there, some might not.”

@rebbel To even question it, say it is a matter of debate, and not denounce it regardless of what others might think is to suggest it might be okay. Arson is a crime. Looting is a crime. Assault is a crime. There is no debate. It is not part of protesting. Our Constitution even states that: ”...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Looting and arson and assault is not “peaceably assembling”. I know you are not from the US, but I’m willing to bet that they are all crimes in your country as well, am I wrong?

And, @jca2 Made the adamant conclusion that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car as the police had told him to do, the subsequent violence and shooting would not have happened. By concluding that she is stating that if a person followed the orders of police then the subsequent violence would not have happened. But the police also ordered people to be off the streets prior to the riots even starting. So by the belief that she set down if the “protesters” had not disobeyed the police, had not broken numerous laws, had not put property and lives in peril, then none of the Rittenhouse shootings would have occurred. Wouldn’t you agree? She obviously can’t get to that point. She will not or cannot actually denounce the actions of the rioters as being anything other than high spirits. We apparently are supposed to let rioters just do whatever they want because if anything happens to one of those rioters, then someone should be put in jail for life.

@seawulf575: I said that I think burning down buildings and looting is wrong. Nowhere in what I wrote did I indicate that __“the actions of the rioters as being anything other than high spirits.“__

I can’t keep repeating myself. There’s not enough time in the day for this.

The Constitition guarantees us the right to peacefully gather. Burning buildings and looting isn’t peaceful. But it was none of Rittenhouse’s business.
Why did his mommy have to drive him, anyway? Does he not know how to drive? But he knows how to shoot a gun. Wow. I am so in awe of that child.

@jca2 You keep repeating yourself and you keep stopping just shy of actually answering the question. If the rioters had followed police orders and cleared the streets, would any of the Rittenhouse shootings happened?

@jca2 The answer to that question has nothing to do with whether vigilantism or rioting is right or wrong. It has to do with disobeying police orders being the root of all the subsequent actions. Either you are saying them not clearing the streets had nothing to do with anything, in which case neither did Zimmerman getting out of the car, OR you are saying that the rioters not clearing the streets did indeed have everything to do with bringing on all subsequent actions. You cannot have it both ways.

Time to give up on him AGAIN @jca2.

You’re right, @Dutchess_III.

Yep….when cornered with logic, blame the one pointing out your insanity.

My official guess on the verdict to be given soon is that he will be fund innocent if the murder charge but will be convicted for a lesser charge.

Whatever the outcome, there will probably be riots in which people will get hurt or killed after the verdict.

Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges

Not surprised.

I’m not surprised either.

I am. And I’m pissed.

I spent the whole week with this on live while working from home. What the news was reporting and what went on in the courtroom especially regarding the evidence presented was not well correlated. My mind changed somewhat and I flipped from thinking he should serve time to thinking he should get slapped with a lesser charge and maybe spend a year or two behind bars. This is not a surprising verdict. This is a litmus test for me now. If people put him up as a hero or as a devil I know not to take their opinions very seriously.

No justice in Amerka.

@Blackwater_Park I’m irritated I was too busy to watch but your post makes me feel better.

I still am confused on why it wasn’t considered premeditated with the weapon and travel. But I’m no lawyer.

Whether or not this is justice, the thing that rings through 400 years of our history is very few people have been afforded the leniency money can buy.

@KNOWITALL Why would it be? He was not the only one there sporting one. Those little militia play army groups carry rifles around all over the place so that precedent was already there. Besides It was pretty clear to me there was not intent to commit murder. If he had used a proper self defense handgun that would have been illegal as a minor and he would have faced gun charges that stuck.

He was the only one who shot people. There were no other casualties besides his.

What’s next guys?

@Dutchess_III Define casualties. I posted a link earlier about a 70 year old guy that was jumped and beaten by 7 rioters for the crime of trying to protect a historic building from being burned. His jaw was broken in 3 places. Does that qualify as a casualty?

But honestly, I think you need to look at the facts. The rioters were attacking Rittenhouse. He was trying to get away. He didn’t shoot anyone until after they attacked him. With the first guy, that guy tried hitting him with a brick in a bag and then continued to chase him. With the second, that guy had a buddy that tripped Rittenhouse (as he was trying to run away) and then he ran up and kicked Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and tried grabbing his gun. When Rittenhouse wouldn’t give it up, the idiot began beating on him with a skateboard. The last guy, by his own testimony under oath said he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.

So let’s sum it up. Rittenhouse was trying to get away from the mob. They kept not only chasing him but threatening him with bodily harm. He only shot them as a last resort. So is it your suggestion that criminals should be allowed to do whatever they want to people and if the people fight back they are somehow worthy of the death penalty?

2 people dead, 1 wounded. Casualties.

So you feel Kenosha protesters were then likewise the aggressors and left casualties behind, right? I already cited that they put a 70 year old into the hospital with a beating that nearly killed him. Wounded. Casualty. You would also then say the CHOP protests were violent and should have had people on trial for first degree murder, right? After all quite a few people were killed and wounded. Casualties. So where was your outrage about that?

What was the CHOP protest?

@rebbel Another BLM “protest” that turned into a riot. I think I said it was in Portland, but that was incorrect. It was Seattle, Washington. The protesters took over and barricaded off 6 city blocks, including a police station. They set up guards and refused to let anyone in without their permission. It was, of course, lauded by the leftists as being something righteous, but many people were killed, including a couple of teenagers who committed the crime of driving too near one of the barricades.

@seawulf575 Thanks.

The only shots fired were by That Idiot.

@Dutchess_III Yes, to protect himself from other idiots that were trying to beat him with bricks and kicks and skateboards and who were pointing guns at him with the intent to shoot him.

I know it’s a waste of time but SOURCES Wulfie.

@Dutchess_III It’s all in the video footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFsZrvMDv5g the Grosskreutz testimony is pretty exonerating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv21bE9PWtE If these videos were not available to the jury I don’t think he would be a free man.

@Dutchess_III How about the trial that just happened as a source?!?!

Is there a link to an article from a legit source that says there was a brick in the plastic bag swung at him? I thought that was inconclusive.

He had no business being there, period.

@Dutchess_III That’s not something that’s going to be argued. He certainly should have stayed home. Being a stupid jackass does not mean you can’t defend yourself though.

I don’t know, aren’t you just asking for trouble by running down the street with an AK?

Yes you are. He went out to show his dick and 2 people died.

@chyna Possibly you are looking for trouble running down the street with an AK. Aren’t you also asking for trouble by rioting, beating innocent people, burning buildings and doing other destructive things? How about asking for trouble by chasing after the idiot with the AK that is running away from you. Threatening him? Beating him? Are any of those things also covered by the “looking for trouble” umbrella?

Day before yesterday, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, there was a protest going on, against covid restrictions, and a ban on New Year’s celebratory fireworks.
It got very, very violent; police cars were set ablaze, shop windows and street furniture got destroyed, police was purposefully attacked, and police shot at rioters (after warning shots were fired).
I was 10 miles away from the goings-on, in my house, where I followed the news on said event.

I stayed home.

You didn’t run to save some unknown something or someone with a bazooka @rebbel? What is wrong with you?

It makes me very sad to hear that about Holland.

Everyone has lost their minds.

@rebbel And if the violence had moved into your neighborhood and threatened your home? What then? I can give you for instance from this country. Look up the McCloskeys. A St. Louis Missouri couple that had a BLM mob break down the gates of their community and start marching in. All this couple did was to get their guns and stand in front of their home. The mob was verbally threatening them and saying they would be back for them soon. The leftist AG brought charges…against the couple. Go figure

@seawulf575 Have no fear – the Governor took care of the McCloskeys and pardoned them.

@rebbel Kind of surprised to hear that. I was always under the general impression, that Europeans have more common sense than we Americans do. Evidently not huh?

@jca2 As he should have. Charges should never have been brought against them. There was a mob that just broke down the gates to their community. They don’t know why the mob is there so they were on their property, prepared to protect themselves if necessary. How is that a crime? And why wasn’t the mob arrested and tried?

@seawulf575: I didn’t say it was a crime.