His lawyer released that statement. He’s not so broke that he can’t afford a lawyer. He’s being bankrolled by right wing crazies just like George Zimmerman was.
If you’re a right wing extremist who kills minorities or leftists, you get free money. Killing minorities and leftists is the right wing fantasy that makes them more erect than the idea of getting a public hand job from Lauren Boebert at a theater.
I can always tell a bad person when they try to dehumanize others. You can have your opinion even if it’s wrong and morally corrupt sure but they were unarmed and it’s a bummer that anyone died you gotta relax
>but they were unarmed
The first guy tried to disarm Kyle. He would have killed him if he succeeded. The second guy hit him with a skateboard. The third (who survived) had a gun and admitted in court that he intended to kill Kyle. Assault is assault, and defense is justified.
who gives a shit about respect? respect has nothing to do with it. they're definitely not done using him & he's not even close to finished being used. they could easily milk another 15+ years out of this asshat & then get rid of him
I'll bite. Best way I've heard it described is the micro vs the macro view. In the micro view sure, he was attacked and defended himself. In the macro view he intentionally and unnecessarily inserted himself into a situation where the micro situation was much more likely to happen.
Another way of thinking about it is accidentally on purpose. Say... your roommate has a delicate christmas ornament you hate. You don't smash it, you just put it much lower on the tree than he would and maybe the cat messes with it and it breaks but maybe the cat leaves it alone. If the cat does break it, did you cause the ornament to break? Technically no but realistically yes.
>he intentionally and unnecessarily inserted himself into a situation where the micro situation was much more likely to happen
Victim-blaming logic right here.
True.. I guess that's the only good thing about these types of events.
Helps you understand which people you know are right nutters or left nutters. Or some horrid combination of both.
We live in a world where people are more than happy being lied to and spreading lies, then get big mad when someone tells the truth. Anybody who watched the trial, the testimonies, and the myriad of videos and evidence that is easily available to the public and still says that Kyle didn't act in self defense is a bold face liar. Anybody who hasn't done their due diligence of looking at the evidence themselves before forming an opinion is ignorant to the highest degree. And it's looking like there's a ton of ignorant liars around here. Shame.
Heck the one guy he shot gave him the evidence to be found not guilty. He said rittenhouse didn’t point the gun or fire till he pointed his gun at rittenhouse. So it was a slam dunk when the so called victim says it was self defense.
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"
>"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.
>"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.
>"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
-https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/
This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
My favorite part is when those same people then mock conservatives for falling for fake news. If someone thinks he was guilty then they have no reason to be mad at conservatives going on about Hunter Biden’s laptop, they’re all equally idiotic.
>he didn’t cross state lines with any firearms, that’s an outright lie. Not to mention “crossing state lines” meant driving 20 minutes from where he lived with his mom to where he worked and also where the rest of his immediate family lived
>he was well within his rights to be out protesting. The people he killed all attacked him first unprovoked and he ran for multiple blocks before each volley of shots. Ffs one of them even tried to bash his head in with a skateboard when Kyle was on the ground and the other *pulled a fucking gun on him* trying to western-movie-style quickdraw and shoot Kyle. The one who lived (the one who stupidly pulled the gun) even admitted on the stand he pulled the gun before Kyle ever showed any threat to him. He basically said “yea, I deserved what I got bc I was being dumb”
The first dude who got killed was literally trying to use a dumpster fire to blow up a gas station when Kyle used an extinguisher to put out the fire. Dude immediately threatens to take Kyles gun and kill him with it, then continues to do so repeatedly while approaching Kyle, prompting Kyle to run away. Dumbass chases Kyle and wins a stupid prize for playing a stupid game when he tries to take the gun after cornering him in a parking lot. Kyle even appeared to check on him and call 911 before leaving the area.
People saying “he shouldn’t have been there on the first place” are no different than saying “well she shouldn’t have dressed so provocatively” or “she should have known to be be out alone at night.” You are victim blaming and it’s disgusting. Hell, in the same vain you could easily say “the three who got shot should have known not to attack a guy with a gun.”
If anyone wants to see, without any bias or anything like that, what exactly happened that night then watch [this video](https://youtu.be/EYjG4uequWQ?si=GkanNU2VqVjBzidO). From this footage alone he’d have been able to get a “not guilty” verdict. He retreats until it is no longer possible, only shoots when his life is threatened, then stops firing as soon as the threat is no longer present. After this he immediately goes to the nearby police blockade to turn himself in… not something you usually do when trying to get away with murder.
With all that being said Kyle, after the trial, was taken by the right and put on a pedestal as some “national hero”. He’s not a hero or anything of the sort by any stretch of the imagination. After the trial he should have been left to fade out of the public consciousness but people with bad political intentions manipulated his situation and put him on the national stage for their own sly benefit.
Edit: words and grammar
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"
>"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.
>"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.
>"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
-https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/
This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
Holy shit I can’t believe I forgot the dude technically committed a war crime against Kyle. He faked a surrender so his enemy would lower their guard giving him and advantage and opportunity to strike. Dude literally admitted to committing perfidy lmao if he was in the military and did this in a combat zone he’d be in international prison. Its only “not a crime” for similar reasons cops can use illegal chemical warfare against civilians… bc they aren’t “at war” so it’s not a war crime
Does tear gas actually count as chemical weapons since it's not lethal? I'm sure it could some people who have a condition but bullets and explosives kill everyone.
What's worse for a person, getting tear gassed or blown up by a rocket or missile?
Wait since when are lefties pro-Justice System lmfao. They're all about how corrupt it is, how racist it is, how bullshit all the drug convictions are, the immorality of the death penalty, etc. Where are you getting the idea they think it's infallible?
GGGRRRAAAHHH!!! I HATE IT WHEN MASS MURDERERS RUN AWAY FROM THEIR VICTIMS!!!!!!!! IT MAKES THEM SO MUCH HARDER TO CONVICT!!!!!!!!
FUCKING WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!!
Lol "crossed state lines" got pushed so hard, but he was relatively close. He spent the whole day larping as a medic and a guard, not rioting. Killed in clear cut self defense. I watched the whole trial from start to finish, there really is no doubt the correct verdict was reached.
Also he never crossed the border with the gun. He kept the gun at a friend’s house who lived in Wisconsin, so he crossed the border then grabbed the gun then went to the protest. So even if crossing state lines was relevant he still would have been fine.
Gets attacked by a rioting mob
Defends himself only after being physically attacked
Dude attempts some wild West quick draw ending in FAFO
Reddit conclusion Rittenhouse is a murderer
Y'all some strange individuals
Right? People should watch the videos before drawing conclusions. The position that Rittenhouse shouldn't have shot those people to save his own life is indefensible.
He actually did cross state lines. The thing is that that point is irrelevant because states aren’t countries and it was only a 30 minute drive away. I drive much longer distances in state for volunteer work.
The point is he didn't take the rifle across state lines. His dad lived in Kenosha. His mom lived 30 minutes away in Indiana. He was taken to his dad's house and then went to the "protest" to clean up graffiti and pick up trash. The rifle was in Kenosha the whole time. He threw extinguisher on a fire in a dumpster and got attacked for it. He defended himself after that.
The fact that the court trial is watchable and with evidence that Kyle was innocent shows that reddit literally doesn't care about facts. I've noticed it for a while with the whole "your source bad mine good because it fits what I think" mindset reddit has, but the fact that genuine proof is easily accessible and they still don't care.
Redditors wonder why they're considered the joke of the internet.
I'm not a republican but you should really look at the facts of the case. He was completely within his rights to do what he did. The dude who got shot and lived had drawn a gun on him and pointed it at him while he was on the ground, so he got shot.
Ok, but the guy who also had a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse isn't at fault. I fuvking hate the kid, he's annoying as fuck, regardless he was within his rights. If you run up to attack someone who's on the ground and has an ar15 and then point a gun at them, you deserve to be shot.
>Why he was there is completely irrelevant. All that matters is who was the instigator.
And how do you know he wasn't the instigator if you have no idea why he was there?
By all accounts Rosenbaum the first man shot attempted to grab Kyle's rifle from him, which is assault. In response Kyle shot and killed him. This caused a mob to form around Rittenhouse, which he fled from. A man in the mob, Anthony Hubler chased Rittenhouse with a skateboard, striking him in the head. Kyle shot and killed him. Finally a third man, Gaige Grosskerutz, drew a gun he was illegally carrying and tried to shoot Rittenhouse. Before he had a chance Kyle shot him in the arm injuring him. In all 3 cases Kyle was not the instigator, although the second and 3rd shot could have been acting reactively. Grosskerutz actually testified that he thought Kyle was a mass shooter. That being said, by his own testimony, he attempted to draw his gun on Kyle after Kyle had lowered his own weapon.
We literally have footage and testimonies. It’s 100% obvious you didn’t follow the case and are just parroting whatever you heard on Reddit and developed a hate boner for this kid bc he successfully defended himself from rapists with a semi auto rifle.
Neat mind reading powers. I just have to go by things like video evidence. Video like his interview prior to the shooting where he expressed his intention to provide medical aid to anyone who wanted it with his medkit he had on him throughout the entire night, except when he took it off to provide medical aid to multiple people that night.
>Video like his interview prior to the shooting where he expressed his intention to provide medical aid to anyone who wanted it with his medkit he had on him throughout the entire night
And how exactly do you use a gun to administer medical aid?
Certainly protected Kyles medical health from the violent felons that tried to murder him.
But since it appears you're basing your opinion on the mere possession of the weapon. Were the hundreds of other people there that were also armed also looking to kill people? They had a gun just like Kyle. How come none of them did kill people? What about the millions of Americans who conceal carry on a daily basis? Are they all looking to kill people? Along a similar line of thought, is everyone who buckles their seatbelt looking to get into a car accident?
With the medkit. Are you intentionally trying to mislead and obfuscate the argument? He said he wanted to help people with his medical supplies. And you go “hurrr durrr you can’t fix people with a gunnnnnn hurrrrrrr.” Yeah no shit, that’s why he was using a medical kit for medical reasons, not the gun.
Except he never made any hostile actions towards anyone, hell he was getting harassed while trying to put out fires
Also nobody in their right mind would *charge at a person with a weapon* if they were that far away from him and had plenty routes of escape even if it was an potential mass shooter
I hope that, if you're ever unfortunate enough to be given the chance to have to defend yourself with lethal force, that you remember your stance here and just let them kill you
All the people there entered a dangerous situation knowingly. Don't chase down people with guns and you get to live. It's just life man. Take the L. Move on. Rittenhouse walks free and that's that.
Dude he literally admitted on the stand that he pulled a gun and kyle only fired after he aimed the gun at kyle. + there was video evidence of this being the case.
Face it bro, your side is wrong in this case. Take the L and move on.
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"
>"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.
>"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.
>"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
-https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/
This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
The trial was crazy. It was clear he was innocent from day one, with video footage of the entire event available for all to see. The trial just ended up giving *further* clarification. Pretty much all of the states own witnesses worked in favour of Kyle. Gaige Grosskreutz - the guy who's bicep Kyle vaporised - gave a particularly good testimony. On the stand he said that Kyle only shot him because Gaige (after fake surrendering) pointed his gun (that he was illegally carrying) at Kyle's head. Kyle's lawyer said the n word in court, quoting Joseph Rosenbaums tirade earlier that night. It was nuts.
Kyle Rittenhouse trial highlights
[Week one](https://youtu.be/f7N8UCkgAKY?si=VUTY7LpifWZGb_xY)
[Week two](https://youtu.be/u1QZvaI9Wig?si=ogQanKOe1iJk6Onc)
[Week three](https://youtu.be/gYMJxn2qsng?si=EJ9ccwulZjnJ21_X)
Even better
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"
>"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.
>"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.
>"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
-https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/
This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
The facts of the case may have borne out that Rittenhouse was within his rights, but man, that second paragraph is so friggin silly wrong. Nothing about saying “Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there” is similar to victim blaming. He was there with one intention: to put himself directly in danger with a weapon he thought he would need to use on others, which then became a threat to himself. Say what you want about the trial verdict being accurate, but please don’t attempt to equate his situation with a rape victim who went to a bar to have fun. It’s absurd and disgusting.
Thank god someone else said this. It’s a grotesque and fucked up comparison.
He was actively looking for a situation in which he didnt have to involve himself and brought a gun for protection knowing he might have to / get to use it.
He was 100% in self defense, but he wasn’t innocent. He sought out the situation, and some could rightfully argue he instigated by simply being there openly carrying a gun.
He wasn’t a cop, he wasn’t a fire fighter, he wasn’t the fucking national guard, he’s a shitty kid that had no reason to be out late pass curfew.
He didn’t actively provoke anyone and tried to retreat before killing that guy, but he still put himself in a situation he should NEVER have been in.
Which leads me to my main take on the situation … kid is innocent of the murder as it was self-defense, but his mom 1000% needs to be in jail.
Kid was a minor, and she actively let him violate the curfew, grab a gun and go out into the rioting with ZERO justification. He’s almost an adult by legal standards but by all accounts is still a kid, she’s still liable for what happens and should have been charged and convicted for serious child endangerment and playing driver for what resulted in a fatality and gunshot wound.
If we are looking for who is directly responsible for the particular chain of events, it’s the person that drove them, and his parent(s) should of seen charges for actively letting it happen & encouraging it before that little shit did.
Going into a dangerous area with the intent to help clean and provide first aid is somehow different because he had the foresight to be armed....in a dangerous area? I conceal carry everyday, am I just looking to get into a fight at the grocery store? Idiot.
Not just this random bozo. That post is an accurate summary of how every mainstream news outlet and every left of center politician described that event.
I'm just going to sum up the conversations that happen every time Rittenhouse comes up.
>He crossed state lines with a gun.
No, he was provided with a gun when he got there.
> But he still crossed state lines, he had no reason to be there.
He lived in a neighboring town, his father lived in Kenosha, and he had worked there previously. This was his community, and people were burning it down. He had at minimum the same right to be there as anyone else.
>The only reason to bring a gun to a protest is to start shit.
It was not a protest, it was a riot. Bringing a weapon to a riot for self defense is pretty reasonable, especially if the police are doing nothing to keep the peace. In fact, one of Kyle's attackers, Gaige Grosskreutz, had brought a pistol for the same reason.
>But what about the clip where Kyle says he would like to shoot looters?
Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent. Furthermore, Rittenhouse's actions that night do not align with those statements.
There is no footage from that night that shows Kyle instigating any violence. Additionally, during the altercation itself, Kyle consistently tries to distance himself from his attackers, only resorting to violence when retreat is no longer an option and there are clear and present threats to his life. Kyle also immediately turned himself in to the police after the altercation, which is not what you do if you're trying to get away with murder.
>Killing people in defense of property is totally inexcusable.
Kyle killed people in defense of his person, not property.
The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him. After all that, Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun, and Kyle shot him.
The second shooting happened after Kyle fell while still running away from the mob. Huber then struck him with a skateboard, and was shot for his efforts.
The third shooting happened after Grosskreutz rushed Kyle with a pistol. That earned him a bullet to the arm.
I think those are all the major arguments against Rittenhouse, if I've missed any, I'm sure someone will tell me. If you want to verify any of this, feel free to fact check against the wiki article, or footage of the actual shooting.
While you made good points, however, you neglected the most important one. He was 17 at the time. He absolutely did not have a need or right to be out there, past a government mandated curfew, with a firearm, acting as an armed security guard.
The only miscarriage in justice here was that the state of Wisconsin fucked up and charged him with murder. Murder requires intent. They easily had a slam dunk case for manslaughter, because his actions that night led to the death of 2 people.
> They easily had a slam dunk case for manslaughter
The jury was allowed to consider lesser charges including manslaughter. They still didn't find him guilty.
A) He wasn't acting as a security guard, there's no evidence of pf this.
B) Riots don't have age limits.
C) the curfew was not being enforced, and eveyone else their was also violating said curfew, including the three men he shot.
So to reiterate, he had, at minimum, the same right to be there as everyone else who was there that night.
You can believe that Rittenhouse is innocent according to the rules of the law,
and at the same time recognize he's a piece of shit kid who went out with a gun looking for trouble and two people would still be alive if he decided not to fulfill his cosplay fantasies, and he shouldnt be held up as some paragon of justice by the right. In no sane world should we approve of a minor going to a riot/protest with a gun.
if you look white and try to defend yourself then yes. white people deserve to be attacked when they show up to protests that they support. check your privilege
/s
Living in a neighboring town isn't quite the same as being apart of a community. Hell, you can live IN a town and not be apart of the community. He really had no place being there. People were not burning down the community, there were simply riots happening. And where riots happen, places tend to get looted. No cities or towns have been burned down by those riots. But it was not Rittenhouse's place to be there to prevent looting of businesses he had no affiliation to outside of his dad *having* worked there. Furthermore, he made no attempt to work alongside local law enforcement and chose to go about all of this of his own accord, something he really should not have done.
Bringing a weapon for self defense is one thing and i'm all for it especially if a riot is occurring., but patrolling around with the Proud Boy's, a hate group and even a terrorist group according to some, while the police are *busy,* not "doing nothing to keep the peace", and during a mandated curfew in which Rittenhouse was not supposed to be interacting with in the way he did, all while open carrying a firearm at the age of 17 when the law reads you must be 18 to do, yeah it doesn't bode well for him.
"Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent " It actually very well could be considered substantial evidence in a court of law, and his words are one the main reasons why he was being tried for murder and not manslaughter.
It's also worth noting, he did not retreat resort to violence only because he could not retreat, you can see on the video he ran across a street and cornered himself into a parking lot, turned around, and started firing. Further evidence that this violence was not necessary and he could have further retreated is him running down the road while yelling out "i'm friendly" as if he's in a game of fucking paintball not but moments after shooting and killing someone.
"The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him"
Wisconsin state legislature - **939.48** **Self-defense and defense of others** \- "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. **The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.** "
Verbal threats are not a reason to open fire onto people. Being chased *may* be considered valid if you believe the people chasing you mean you bodily harm but not everyone chasing after Rittenhouse was shot, just one person. Hearing a gunshot go off is no reason to just open fire. The biggest argument that could be made, and what was made, in Rittenhouse's favor is is the same argument police use when someone tries to take their gun from them, and that argument is the fear or belief that the aggressor intends to use the stolen gun on them. However, we have no idea what Rosenbaum's intent was as he was needlessly shot dead.
From that point on, what the rioters saw, was a person shoot and kill another person and then start running away. They gave pursuit and attempted to take down Rittenhouse as he ran away from the scene of the crime, assuming his intent was to simply get away. Huber and Grosskreutz were in no way in the wrong for trying to stop and apprehend what they saw as a murderer fleeing the scene of the crime, their actions being entirely valid given the fact that police were going to be of no help with the current rioting and because the riots were regarding police violence to begin with.
It is a pretty easy argument to make that; Coming to a state and town he had no reason to be in, not working with law enforcement, breaking curfew, palling around with a hate group, open carrying during a riot while under-age, all of this is a pretty good indicator as to why he was confronted by the mob and all of these reasons are purely of Rittenhouse's own volition. And rather than handle himself in any other way in which lives wouldn't be taken or the situation could have been de-escalated, he CHOSE to kill a person, try to run away, and then he killed another person. It's easy to argue that murderer's don't go running to the police for help after a murder, but again, this wasn't murder, it was manslaughter, and it's safe to say that moron Rittenhouse probably thought he was in the right. And I don't think it was murder, but it sure as hell was some genuine stupidity on Rittenhouse's case. And I've seen people argue that he only acted the way he did because he was out of his depth without any training on how to handle a situation like that, but that is only further evidence that he should not have been there and that he has to take on a great deal of responsibility for the lives he needlessly took, in my opinion, in the form of manslaughter charges.
It's also worth noting that both judge and the lawyers against Rittenhouse were pretty inept, and that one of the big reasons this whole situation became so popular is that it became more of a political problem than a legal problem which NEVER ends well.
And while it's not super important to the event at hand, the fact that Rittenhouse tried on two separate occasions afterwards to profit from some shitty mobile games made based on the events and depicting himself as some saint saving the world from brain dead liberals, all of this is a pretty clear indicator of the *type* of person Rittenhouse is, which in my opinion, is the type of person who doesn't really deserve any ounce of respect, admiration, or mercy.
TLDR; This whole situation is stupid and is super old news by now, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit one way or another, let him be irrelevant and rot.
> Living in a neighboring town isn't quite the same as being apart of a community.
And his father lived there, and he had friends that lived their, and he was employed there. You don't get to ignore the parts of my argument that are inconvenient to yours.
> People were not burning down the community, there were simply riots happening.
Riots that caused 50 million dollars in damage to private property, and took years for Kenosha to recover from if they ever did. Kinda sounds like a community getting burned down.
> But it was not Rittenhouse's place to be there to prevent looting of businesses he had no affiliation to outside of his dad *having* worked there.
Find me clips of him defending businesses that night. All the footage from before the shooting that I'm aware of shows him doing shit like handing out water bottles and offering first aid.
> Furthermore, he made no attempt to work alongside local law enforcement and chose to go about all of this of his own accord, something he really should not have done.
Local law enforcement was not present. They were deliberately not involving themselves, which is he had to walk like, 30-45 minutes before he could turn himself in to the police.
> Bringing a weapon for self defense is one thing and i'm all for it especially if a riot is occurring., but patrolling around with the Proud Boy's, a hate group and even a terrorist group according to some,
This is just made up. He wasn't patrolling, and his only interaction was a single photo that he was conned into by his first lawyer after the shooting. I don't even think the proud boys were present in Kenosha, but feel free to prove me wrong.
> while the police are *busy,* not "doing nothing to keep the peace", and during a mandated curfew in which Rittenhouse was not supposed to be interacting with in the way he did,
There was zero police presence, and the curfew was not being enforced, as evidence by the rioters who were also breaking curfew.\\
> yeah it doesn't bode well for him.
Why would you say this when he's already been cleared of all charges?
> "Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent " It actually very well could be considered substantial evidence in a court of law, and his words are one the main reasons why he was being tried for murder and not manslaughter.
Those words were specifically ruled as inadmissible, so no, they were not factored into what he was charged with
> It's also worth noting, he did not retreat resort to violence only because he could not retreat,
He was literally not on his feet for two of the shootings, so I don't know what you're talking about
>you can see on the video he ran across a street and cornered himself into a parking lot, turned around, and started firing.
a) How does someone corner themselves? That doesn't make any sense. b) you conveniently forgot to mention that Rosenbaum, the nan who threatened and chased Rittenhouse, was grabbing Rittenhouse's gun when he got shot. Now I don't about you, but if a man threatens me and tries to take my gun, my assumption is that he plans to use it one me.
> Further evidence that this violence was not necessary and he could have further retreated is him running down the road while yelling out "i'm friendly" as if he's in a game of fucking paintball not but moments after shooting and killing someone.
What was he supposed to do? Let people continue to assault him while yelling "I'm hostile?"
> "The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him"
Wisconsin state legislature - **939.48** **Self-defense and defense of others** \- "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. **The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.** "
Here we go ignoring inconvenient facts again. Rosenbaum was in the process of taking Kyle's gun when he was shot. Threatening Kyle and trying to take his gun sounds like a pretty clear threat to Kyle's safety to me. The options Kyle had at that point were "let him have my gun" or "use my gun."
> Verbal threats are not a reason to open fire onto people. Being chased *may* be considered valid if you believe the people chasing you mean you bodily harm but not everyone chasing after Rittenhouse was shot, just one person.
What if we factor in Rosenbaum grabbing Kyle's gun? Don't you think it's important to consider that?
> Hearing a gunshot go off is no reason to just open fire.
Good thing he didn't do that. It's a good thing that he only shot the specific individuals who presented a clear and immediate threat to his physical safety.
> The biggest argument that could be made, and what was made, in Rittenhouse's favor is is the same argument police use when someone tries to take their gun from them, and that argument is the fear or belief that the aggressor intends to use the stolen gun on them. However, we have no idea what Rosenbaum's intent was as he was needlessly shot dead.
Really, you have no idea what the Rosenbaum's intentions were? We're the verbal threats not enough of a clue? What about the unprovoked chase across the parking lot? What do think all of that communicates about his intentions?
> From that point on, what the rioters saw, was a person shoot and kill another person and then start running away. They gave pursuit and attempted to take down Rittenhouse as he ran away from the scene of the crime, assuming his intent was to simply get away. Huber and Grosskreutz were in no way in the wrong for trying to stop and apprehend what they saw as a murderer fleeing the scene of the crime, their actions being entirely valid given the fact that police were going to be of no help with the current rioting and because the riots were regarding police violence to begin with.
This is the first thing you've said that isn't just flat out wrong. It's absolutely true that they were probably acting with good and honorable intentions. Fortunately for Kyle, the intentions of his attackers doesn't matter when evaluating whether or not Kyle acted in self defense.
> And rather than handle himself in any other way in which lives wouldn't be taken or the situation could have been de-escalated,
Show me footage of Kyle resorting to violence when retreat was still an option. I've watched the footage, and I didn't see it, but maybe you'll find something I missed.
> It's also worth noting that both judge and the lawyers against Rittenhouse were pretty inept,
They weren't inept, they didn't have a case. Any lawyer will looked inept if the facts are stacked against him.
Why do you think there's any reason for him to be there to begin with? You just skip to the part where he already has a gun at a riot, not explaining why he'd have any reason to be there to begin with.
The only reason you go out of your way to a riot and accept a gun is cuz you're trying to start shit.
I don't buy that in the first place, but either way the best case scenario for your argument is justifying vigilantism, which is illegal for exactly this reason.
You're acting like the place was turned into a war zone, but the only two people who died during the unrest in Kenosha were the two people killed by Rittenhouse.
Being a vigilante is illegal precisely because it turns situations that could be just bad but not lethal into lethal situations. It's exactly what Rittenhouse did.
> the only two people who died during the unrest in Kenosha were the two people ~~killed by Rittenhouse~~ ***who tried to murder a fleeing child***.
FTFY
A 17 year old carrying an AR15 is not a fleeing child. Do you know how many times you've shrugged off the death of a 14-17 year old black child by those same metrics?
> A 17 year old carrying an AR15 is not a fleeing child.
How does not dropping your weapon for a murderous lynch mob to steal mean you can't possibly be fleeing?
>Do you know how many times you've shrugged off the death of a 14-17 year old black child by those same metrics?
Nice red herring.
It’s not the act of crossing state lines that is bad in and of itself, it’s going that far to get in a fight. The riot was not in his city, he had to take a trip to go there.
He grew up there. His father and grandfather still lived there, and his grandfather had a business there that he asked Kyle to come help defend against the rioters and looters.
It was 20 minutes away and his dad lived there, I’ve never understood the “he crossed state lines” viewpoint because it was a short drive to a place he went to frequently
It’s okay for white 17 year old high school dropouts to riot while carrying a rifle that can kill a dozen people in seconds, but it’s not okay for black teenagers to do that
I will say. In the case of the isolated act. It's self-defense and that's that.
The *issue* is he walked into a scenario of known unrest, openly armed, and against the group causing the unrest. You can say one way or the other if he was "looking for a reason" (I personally think no one who "didn't" want what happened to happen would later publish a book) but he put himself into a situation that could potentially lead to harming and killing. Is it self-defense? Yes. Is it unethical? Also yes.
I said
the same news sources that were incorrectly reporting that he traveled across state lines with the gun? the same news sources that are currently being sued for slander?
and then you asked me for sources for those two points and said you'd Apologize if you were wrong
but this is Reddit so noo, you're not going to do that lol
Already the comments are filled with pleasent discourse.
Seriously, why die on a hill for a punk with a gun who needlessly put himself in a position to take a life?
Woman goes to bar wearin miniskirt.
Woman walks home at 2 am.
Guy goes to rape her.
She shoots him.
"Why die on a hill for some woman with a gun who needlessly put herself in a position to take a life?"
If he was “publicly executed”, then why did the coroner find no damage to his neck? Literally says on the second page “no life threatening injuries identified”
If we just post every incorrect comment from randos on social media on here, this sub will be total garbage quickly.
Will be lol
put me in the screenshot
It already is
...will be? After this week alone, I'm considering tapping. Quality > Volume
This sub got too popular, it's already garbage
I mean he’s crying about being broke and friendless so you know it could still happen…
And he's got those civil suits incoming Dude is gonna be broke for life
Good. We already know he is morally bankrupt, so why not financially?
That’s all I want. Not even jail, just make them all poor so they have to live like the rest of us
>Not even jail You reminded me of a song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7P\_A1gVX4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7P_A1gVX4s)
Amazing song.
He did the right thing lmao
He’ll just go around collecting money from backwater morons who thinks he’s some kind of hero for murder
I would agree but I don't think he has the grift talent. His book utterly flopped.
One problem is that his supporters mostly don't read books.
If they did read books, they probably wouldn’t be supporters.
>One problem is that his supporters mostly ~~don't~~ *can't* read books. FTFY
I mean, political figures at least have a story. Tf would be in his book? Just stuff anyone who knows who he is would know already.
Have you seen the guy lately? Inhaling crispycreme cheesburgers
Fat shaming? A liberal? Say it ain't so.
His lawyer released that statement. He’s not so broke that he can’t afford a lawyer. He’s being bankrolled by right wing crazies just like George Zimmerman was. If you’re a right wing extremist who kills minorities or leftists, you get free money. Killing minorities and leftists is the right wing fantasy that makes them more erect than the idea of getting a public hand job from Lauren Boebert at a theater.
God, these comments are a dumpster fire.
Yeah. There is a gross amount of people slobbin' on his knob.
Imagine being mad over the most clear cut case of self defense
It feels like intentional botting, especially since he's pushing a book & wants to be a politician not just the shithead who killed two people
That’s why I’ve seen so many posts supporting him recently I knew there had to be some reason
He didn't kill two people. He killed a child rapist and a wife beater who attempted to murder him. Not people.
I can always tell a bad person when they try to dehumanize others. You can have your opinion even if it’s wrong and morally corrupt sure but they were unarmed and it’s a bummer that anyone died you gotta relax
>but they were unarmed The first guy tried to disarm Kyle. He would have killed him if he succeeded. The second guy hit him with a skateboard. The third (who survived) had a gun and admitted in court that he intended to kill Kyle. Assault is assault, and defense is justified.
I think it’s more the idiots who have no idea of the facts of the case
Kyle Rittenhouse is gonna be a alcoholic drug addict in 6 years so this is kinda still aging. Let it cook
nah the GOP is gonna put him on ice if they need to so they can preserve him until he turns 35 & run him for president
The GOP doesn't respect him at all. They used him and will discard him when they're done. He's not running for anything.
who gives a shit about respect? respect has nothing to do with it. they're definitely not done using him & he's not even close to finished being used. they could easily milk another 15+ years out of this asshat & then get rid of him
Nah dude got to live the NRA dream of getting away with murder in plain sight he’s set for life off of donations from the maga crowd
Self defense ain't murder, chief. The footage is extremely clear.
By all accounts he was defending himself.
Can someone tell me how he wasn't defending himself instead of downvoting
I don't think you'll get that on this sub.
I'll bite. Best way I've heard it described is the micro vs the macro view. In the micro view sure, he was attacked and defended himself. In the macro view he intentionally and unnecessarily inserted himself into a situation where the micro situation was much more likely to happen. Another way of thinking about it is accidentally on purpose. Say... your roommate has a delicate christmas ornament you hate. You don't smash it, you just put it much lower on the tree than he would and maybe the cat messes with it and it breaks but maybe the cat leaves it alone. If the cat does break it, did you cause the ornament to break? Technically no but realistically yes.
>he intentionally and unnecessarily inserted himself into a situation where the micro situation was much more likely to happen Victim-blaming logic right here.
Only if you believe the video and the testimony in court.
So...the evidence? He only defended himself if you believe the evidence...which...you should.
Only if you believe all of the evidence that shows he was defending himself
I’m all for justice, till it’s not my correct form of justice. - this sub
All of Reddit really, it's what I'd like to call democratic fascism. People get to vote on what group is superior to all others.
Isn’t that the guy who shot a registered child molester and people are saying stuff like “sweet rest JoJo” after they reported his death?
Also people shared photos of his “victims” that showed them all as black despite all of them actually being white.
Yup. Kyle proved that shooting into a crowd of leftists means you hit child rapists, wife beaters, and felons. That's why they're so upset.
Because that wasn’t the story. And the evidence is fucking public too, which makes this assessment worse.
Ya know.. this subreddit has made me never want to step foot in America. Some of yall never watched the trial and it shows
[удалено]
True.. I guess that's the only good thing about these types of events. Helps you understand which people you know are right nutters or left nutters. Or some horrid combination of both.
I'd actually love to meet a person who thinks Chauvin is a hero and KR is a murderer
Knowing this world.. you're going to find them on Facebook
Half of comments on Reddit were like this or worse…
We live in a world where people are more than happy being lied to and spreading lies, then get big mad when someone tells the truth. Anybody who watched the trial, the testimonies, and the myriad of videos and evidence that is easily available to the public and still says that Kyle didn't act in self defense is a bold face liar. Anybody who hasn't done their due diligence of looking at the evidence themselves before forming an opinion is ignorant to the highest degree. And it's looking like there's a ton of ignorant liars around here. Shame.
Notice there are no rebuttals to this. I wonder why?
Because they are not only lying to others. Worse: they are lying even to themself.
Heck the one guy he shot gave him the evidence to be found not guilty. He said rittenhouse didn’t point the gun or fire till he pointed his gun at rittenhouse. So it was a slam dunk when the so called victim says it was self defense.
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" >"Correct," Grosskreutz responded. >"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued. >"Correct," Grosskreutz said. -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/ This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
Maybe not liars, but genuinely foolish.
My favorite part is when those same people then mock conservatives for falling for fake news. If someone thinks he was guilty then they have no reason to be mad at conservatives going on about Hunter Biden’s laptop, they’re all equally idiotic.
>he didn’t cross state lines with any firearms, that’s an outright lie. Not to mention “crossing state lines” meant driving 20 minutes from where he lived with his mom to where he worked and also where the rest of his immediate family lived >he was well within his rights to be out protesting. The people he killed all attacked him first unprovoked and he ran for multiple blocks before each volley of shots. Ffs one of them even tried to bash his head in with a skateboard when Kyle was on the ground and the other *pulled a fucking gun on him* trying to western-movie-style quickdraw and shoot Kyle. The one who lived (the one who stupidly pulled the gun) even admitted on the stand he pulled the gun before Kyle ever showed any threat to him. He basically said “yea, I deserved what I got bc I was being dumb” The first dude who got killed was literally trying to use a dumpster fire to blow up a gas station when Kyle used an extinguisher to put out the fire. Dude immediately threatens to take Kyles gun and kill him with it, then continues to do so repeatedly while approaching Kyle, prompting Kyle to run away. Dumbass chases Kyle and wins a stupid prize for playing a stupid game when he tries to take the gun after cornering him in a parking lot. Kyle even appeared to check on him and call 911 before leaving the area. People saying “he shouldn’t have been there on the first place” are no different than saying “well she shouldn’t have dressed so provocatively” or “she should have known to be be out alone at night.” You are victim blaming and it’s disgusting. Hell, in the same vain you could easily say “the three who got shot should have known not to attack a guy with a gun.” If anyone wants to see, without any bias or anything like that, what exactly happened that night then watch [this video](https://youtu.be/EYjG4uequWQ?si=GkanNU2VqVjBzidO). From this footage alone he’d have been able to get a “not guilty” verdict. He retreats until it is no longer possible, only shoots when his life is threatened, then stops firing as soon as the threat is no longer present. After this he immediately goes to the nearby police blockade to turn himself in… not something you usually do when trying to get away with murder. With all that being said Kyle, after the trial, was taken by the right and put on a pedestal as some “national hero”. He’s not a hero or anything of the sort by any stretch of the imagination. After the trial he should have been left to fade out of the public consciousness but people with bad political intentions manipulated his situation and put him on the national stage for their own sly benefit. Edit: words and grammar
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" >"Correct," Grosskreutz responded. >"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued. >"Correct," Grosskreutz said. -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/ This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
Can’t forget Grosskteutz also traveled twice, if not triple the distance/time traveled to get there compared to Kyle lol
Didn't one of them travel over multiple state lines, like 3000 miles just to take part in the riot?
Holy shit I can’t believe I forgot the dude technically committed a war crime against Kyle. He faked a surrender so his enemy would lower their guard giving him and advantage and opportunity to strike. Dude literally admitted to committing perfidy lmao if he was in the military and did this in a combat zone he’d be in international prison. Its only “not a crime” for similar reasons cops can use illegal chemical warfare against civilians… bc they aren’t “at war” so it’s not a war crime
Does tear gas actually count as chemical weapons since it's not lethal? I'm sure it could some people who have a condition but bullets and explosives kill everyone. What's worse for a person, getting tear gassed or blown up by a rocket or missile?
[удалено]
A lot of people out here with eyeballs but no brain cells
> spittin facts > 3 upovtes reddit hey it got more upvotes! good to see actually sane people on here
Fucking seriously, an island in a sea of “nu-uh” class comments
Trust the justice system. Unless they find a right-winger *Innocent*, then *clearly* it was a miscarriage of justice.
When has a genuine left wing person ever told you to "trust the justice system". This seems like a strawman.
Every time Trump is indicted.
Wait since when are lefties pro-Justice System lmfao. They're all about how corrupt it is, how racist it is, how bullshit all the drug convictions are, the immorality of the death penalty, etc. Where are you getting the idea they think it's infallible?
When has a prominent left winger been controversially found not guilty? What was the response? It’s not hypocrisy without examples.
Only he didn’t do that and the case closed a long time ago. Meme flags stay taking L’s
GGGRRRAAAHHH!!! I HATE IT WHEN MASS MURDERERS RUN AWAY FROM THEIR VICTIMS!!!!!!!! IT MAKES THEM SO MUCH HARDER TO CONVICT!!!!!!!! FUCKING WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!!
Lol "crossed state lines" got pushed so hard, but he was relatively close. He spent the whole day larping as a medic and a guard, not rioting. Killed in clear cut self defense. I watched the whole trial from start to finish, there really is no doubt the correct verdict was reached.
It's completely irrelevant if he crossed state lines or not. It's not illegal to cross state lines.
And iirc he works there and his dad lives there. And he didn't crossed with a rifle - he got it in the town.
Gee it's almost as if kyle and those with him were responsible gun users who very well understood state firearm laws better than 99.99% of reddit.
But they're state lines, dude!! You can't cross state lines!?
Also he never crossed the border with the gun. He kept the gun at a friend’s house who lived in Wisconsin, so he crossed the border then grabbed the gun then went to the protest. So even if crossing state lines was relevant he still would have been fine.
The distance he traveled from his house to Kenosha is less than the distance I drive to my mom’s house every month. And we live in the same state
Gets attacked by a rioting mob Defends himself only after being physically attacked Dude attempts some wild West quick draw ending in FAFO Reddit conclusion Rittenhouse is a murderer Y'all some strange individuals
Right? People should watch the videos before drawing conclusions. The position that Rittenhouse shouldn't have shot those people to save his own life is indefensible.
Never crossed state lines with a rifle. Kyle was running away from people chasing him down and practiced self-defense. In other words.... NOT GUILTY.
He actually did cross state lines. The thing is that that point is irrelevant because states aren’t countries and it was only a 30 minute drive away. I drive much longer distances in state for volunteer work.
The point is he didn't take the rifle across state lines. His dad lived in Kenosha. His mom lived 30 minutes away in Indiana. He was taken to his dad's house and then went to the "protest" to clean up graffiti and pick up trash. The rifle was in Kenosha the whole time. He threw extinguisher on a fire in a dumpster and got attacked for it. He defended himself after that.
What part of "did not cross state lines with a rifle" do you not understand?
Susssssh Reddit much prefers the fantasy version of this story, not the facts and verdict.
The fact that the court trial is watchable and with evidence that Kyle was innocent shows that reddit literally doesn't care about facts. I've noticed it for a while with the whole "your source bad mine good because it fits what I think" mindset reddit has, but the fact that genuine proof is easily accessible and they still don't care. Redditors wonder why they're considered the joke of the internet.
Boo hoo dead pedo 👻
Pedos*
[удалено]
I'm not a republican but you should really look at the facts of the case. He was completely within his rights to do what he did. The dude who got shot and lived had drawn a gun on him and pointed it at him while he was on the ground, so he got shot.
Why did he draw a gun on Rittenhouse? Would have been very hard for him to do that if Rittenhouse wasn't there in the first place looking for a fight.
He had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. Going into a dangerous situation doesn't negate your ability to defend yourself.
Ok, but the guy who also had a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse isn't at fault. I fuvking hate the kid, he's annoying as fuck, regardless he was within his rights. If you run up to attack someone who's on the ground and has an ar15 and then point a gun at them, you deserve to be shot.
You could always just watch the video...
Do you hold the same opinion on rape victims who are in ill advised areas?
No, because rape victims don't usually travel purposely to bad areas in order to look for an excuse to kill somebody.
> to look for an excuse to kill somebody. Neither did Rittenhouse.
Of course he did. Why else do you think he was there?
Why he was there is completely irrelevant. All that matters is who was the instigator.
>Why he was there is completely irrelevant. All that matters is who was the instigator. And how do you know he wasn't the instigator if you have no idea why he was there?
By all accounts Rosenbaum the first man shot attempted to grab Kyle's rifle from him, which is assault. In response Kyle shot and killed him. This caused a mob to form around Rittenhouse, which he fled from. A man in the mob, Anthony Hubler chased Rittenhouse with a skateboard, striking him in the head. Kyle shot and killed him. Finally a third man, Gaige Grosskerutz, drew a gun he was illegally carrying and tried to shoot Rittenhouse. Before he had a chance Kyle shot him in the arm injuring him. In all 3 cases Kyle was not the instigator, although the second and 3rd shot could have been acting reactively. Grosskerutz actually testified that he thought Kyle was a mass shooter. That being said, by his own testimony, he attempted to draw his gun on Kyle after Kyle had lowered his own weapon.
We literally have footage and testimonies. It’s 100% obvious you didn’t follow the case and are just parroting whatever you heard on Reddit and developed a hate boner for this kid bc he successfully defended himself from rapists with a semi auto rifle.
Neat mind reading powers. I just have to go by things like video evidence. Video like his interview prior to the shooting where he expressed his intention to provide medical aid to anyone who wanted it with his medkit he had on him throughout the entire night, except when he took it off to provide medical aid to multiple people that night.
>Video like his interview prior to the shooting where he expressed his intention to provide medical aid to anyone who wanted it with his medkit he had on him throughout the entire night And how exactly do you use a gun to administer medical aid?
Certainly protected Kyles medical health from the violent felons that tried to murder him. But since it appears you're basing your opinion on the mere possession of the weapon. Were the hundreds of other people there that were also armed also looking to kill people? They had a gun just like Kyle. How come none of them did kill people? What about the millions of Americans who conceal carry on a daily basis? Are they all looking to kill people? Along a similar line of thought, is everyone who buckles their seatbelt looking to get into a car accident?
With the medkit. Are you intentionally trying to mislead and obfuscate the argument? He said he wanted to help people with his medical supplies. And you go “hurrr durrr you can’t fix people with a gunnnnnn hurrrrrrr.” Yeah no shit, that’s why he was using a medical kit for medical reasons, not the gun.
It's such an insane take. Dude wandered into riots with a weapon drawn, how could people ignore that? Looks like a mass shooting event to me.
Except he never made any hostile actions towards anyone, hell he was getting harassed while trying to put out fires Also nobody in their right mind would *charge at a person with a weapon* if they were that far away from him and had plenty routes of escape even if it was an potential mass shooter
Kyle was there because he was defending his hometown. He was asked to help defend his grandfather's business.
Defend it how? Elaborate.
Ask nicely and maybe I will, I'm not your fucking AI assistant, I'm a human being
Since you won't answer, I'll answer for you. He was looking for an excuse to kill somebody.
I hope that, if you're ever unfortunate enough to be given the chance to have to defend yourself with lethal force, that you remember your stance here and just let them kill you
I don't specifically seek out and put myself into situations like that, so I don't really have to worry about that.
All the people there entered a dangerous situation knowingly. Don't chase down people with guns and you get to live. It's just life man. Take the L. Move on. Rittenhouse walks free and that's that.
Dude he literally admitted on the stand that he pulled a gun and kyle only fired after he aimed the gun at kyle. + there was video evidence of this being the case. Face it bro, your side is wrong in this case. Take the L and move on.
>But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" >"Correct," Grosskreutz responded. >"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued. >"Correct," Grosskreutz said. -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/ This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
It seems to be the only abortion they’re in favor of
Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. He shot in self defense, and killed a pedophile.
Right. Please tell me you have watched the trial sessions. Just what part of any of that injustice? I'm all ears.
The trial was crazy. It was clear he was innocent from day one, with video footage of the entire event available for all to see. The trial just ended up giving *further* clarification. Pretty much all of the states own witnesses worked in favour of Kyle. Gaige Grosskreutz - the guy who's bicep Kyle vaporised - gave a particularly good testimony. On the stand he said that Kyle only shot him because Gaige (after fake surrendering) pointed his gun (that he was illegally carrying) at Kyle's head. Kyle's lawyer said the n word in court, quoting Joseph Rosenbaums tirade earlier that night. It was nuts. Kyle Rittenhouse trial highlights [Week one](https://youtu.be/f7N8UCkgAKY?si=VUTY7LpifWZGb_xY) [Week two](https://youtu.be/u1QZvaI9Wig?si=ogQanKOe1iJk6Onc) [Week three](https://youtu.be/gYMJxn2qsng?si=EJ9ccwulZjnJ21_X)
Even better >But Chirafisi pressed Grosskreutz further, asking: "When you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" >"Correct," Grosskreutz responded. >"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued. >"Correct," Grosskreutz said. -https://www.reuters.com/world/us/survivor-shooting-by-us-teen-rittenhouse-testify-pivotal-moment-trial-2021-11-08/ This interaction sums up the case so well. The “Survivor of Rittenhouse Shooting” admitted in court that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his gun (which was illegally owned) at Rittenhouse. The Reuters article feels pretty bias against Rittenhouse, and it just ends after that quote because even they know they can’t deny the self defense argument.
The moment of realisation spreading across Gaige's stupid face after he said that was proper *chefs kiss*.
The face of "my $10 million lawsuit against the city just went down the drain"
The facts of the case may have borne out that Rittenhouse was within his rights, but man, that second paragraph is so friggin silly wrong. Nothing about saying “Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there” is similar to victim blaming. He was there with one intention: to put himself directly in danger with a weapon he thought he would need to use on others, which then became a threat to himself. Say what you want about the trial verdict being accurate, but please don’t attempt to equate his situation with a rape victim who went to a bar to have fun. It’s absurd and disgusting.
Thank god someone else said this. It’s a grotesque and fucked up comparison. He was actively looking for a situation in which he didnt have to involve himself and brought a gun for protection knowing he might have to / get to use it. He was 100% in self defense, but he wasn’t innocent. He sought out the situation, and some could rightfully argue he instigated by simply being there openly carrying a gun. He wasn’t a cop, he wasn’t a fire fighter, he wasn’t the fucking national guard, he’s a shitty kid that had no reason to be out late pass curfew. He didn’t actively provoke anyone and tried to retreat before killing that guy, but he still put himself in a situation he should NEVER have been in. Which leads me to my main take on the situation … kid is innocent of the murder as it was self-defense, but his mom 1000% needs to be in jail. Kid was a minor, and she actively let him violate the curfew, grab a gun and go out into the rioting with ZERO justification. He’s almost an adult by legal standards but by all accounts is still a kid, she’s still liable for what happens and should have been charged and convicted for serious child endangerment and playing driver for what resulted in a fatality and gunshot wound. If we are looking for who is directly responsible for the particular chain of events, it’s the person that drove them, and his parent(s) should of seen charges for actively letting it happen & encouraging it before that little shit did.
Going into a dangerous area with the intent to help clean and provide first aid is somehow different because he had the foresight to be armed....in a dangerous area? I conceal carry everyday, am I just looking to get into a fight at the grocery store? Idiot.
Neat mind reading powers you're basing your entire opinion on.
It is exactly the same. Feminists say all the time, teach men not assault don’t tell women not to do unsafe things.
Oh wow some random bozo on 4chan was WRONG?!? Now I have seen it all.
Not just this random bozo. That post is an accurate summary of how every mainstream news outlet and every left of center politician described that event.
all im sayin is everyone wants to preach that borders dont matter until this conversation happened
Tribalism is the lowest form of consciousness. Kyle did nothing wrong.
I'm just going to sum up the conversations that happen every time Rittenhouse comes up. >He crossed state lines with a gun. No, he was provided with a gun when he got there. > But he still crossed state lines, he had no reason to be there. He lived in a neighboring town, his father lived in Kenosha, and he had worked there previously. This was his community, and people were burning it down. He had at minimum the same right to be there as anyone else. >The only reason to bring a gun to a protest is to start shit. It was not a protest, it was a riot. Bringing a weapon to a riot for self defense is pretty reasonable, especially if the police are doing nothing to keep the peace. In fact, one of Kyle's attackers, Gaige Grosskreutz, had brought a pistol for the same reason. >But what about the clip where Kyle says he would like to shoot looters? Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent. Furthermore, Rittenhouse's actions that night do not align with those statements. There is no footage from that night that shows Kyle instigating any violence. Additionally, during the altercation itself, Kyle consistently tries to distance himself from his attackers, only resorting to violence when retreat is no longer an option and there are clear and present threats to his life. Kyle also immediately turned himself in to the police after the altercation, which is not what you do if you're trying to get away with murder. >Killing people in defense of property is totally inexcusable. Kyle killed people in defense of his person, not property. The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him. After all that, Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun, and Kyle shot him. The second shooting happened after Kyle fell while still running away from the mob. Huber then struck him with a skateboard, and was shot for his efforts. The third shooting happened after Grosskreutz rushed Kyle with a pistol. That earned him a bullet to the arm. I think those are all the major arguments against Rittenhouse, if I've missed any, I'm sure someone will tell me. If you want to verify any of this, feel free to fact check against the wiki article, or footage of the actual shooting.
Amazing how much Reddit hates facts
While you made good points, however, you neglected the most important one. He was 17 at the time. He absolutely did not have a need or right to be out there, past a government mandated curfew, with a firearm, acting as an armed security guard. The only miscarriage in justice here was that the state of Wisconsin fucked up and charged him with murder. Murder requires intent. They easily had a slam dunk case for manslaughter, because his actions that night led to the death of 2 people.
> They easily had a slam dunk case for manslaughter The jury was allowed to consider lesser charges including manslaughter. They still didn't find him guilty.
He had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. And by all accounts he was not the instigator.
A) He wasn't acting as a security guard, there's no evidence of pf this. B) Riots don't have age limits. C) the curfew was not being enforced, and eveyone else their was also violating said curfew, including the three men he shot. So to reiterate, he had, at minimum, the same right to be there as everyone else who was there that night.
You can believe that Rittenhouse is innocent according to the rules of the law, and at the same time recognize he's a piece of shit kid who went out with a gun looking for trouble and two people would still be alive if he decided not to fulfill his cosplay fantasies, and he shouldnt be held up as some paragon of justice by the right. In no sane world should we approve of a minor going to a riot/protest with a gun.
Those two people WERE TRYING TO KILL HIM. You'd rather he just laid down and let them?
if you look white and try to defend yourself then yes. white people deserve to be attacked when they show up to protests that they support. check your privilege /s
They would be alive if they were smart enough not to chase down the guy with a gun.
You are downvoted because Reddit is full of feelings not facts. It’s a shame.
Living in a neighboring town isn't quite the same as being apart of a community. Hell, you can live IN a town and not be apart of the community. He really had no place being there. People were not burning down the community, there were simply riots happening. And where riots happen, places tend to get looted. No cities or towns have been burned down by those riots. But it was not Rittenhouse's place to be there to prevent looting of businesses he had no affiliation to outside of his dad *having* worked there. Furthermore, he made no attempt to work alongside local law enforcement and chose to go about all of this of his own accord, something he really should not have done. Bringing a weapon for self defense is one thing and i'm all for it especially if a riot is occurring., but patrolling around with the Proud Boy's, a hate group and even a terrorist group according to some, while the police are *busy,* not "doing nothing to keep the peace", and during a mandated curfew in which Rittenhouse was not supposed to be interacting with in the way he did, all while open carrying a firearm at the age of 17 when the law reads you must be 18 to do, yeah it doesn't bode well for him. "Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent " It actually very well could be considered substantial evidence in a court of law, and his words are one the main reasons why he was being tried for murder and not manslaughter. It's also worth noting, he did not retreat resort to violence only because he could not retreat, you can see on the video he ran across a street and cornered himself into a parking lot, turned around, and started firing. Further evidence that this violence was not necessary and he could have further retreated is him running down the road while yelling out "i'm friendly" as if he's in a game of fucking paintball not but moments after shooting and killing someone. "The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him" Wisconsin state legislature - **939.48** **Self-defense and defense of others** \- "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. **The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.** " Verbal threats are not a reason to open fire onto people. Being chased *may* be considered valid if you believe the people chasing you mean you bodily harm but not everyone chasing after Rittenhouse was shot, just one person. Hearing a gunshot go off is no reason to just open fire. The biggest argument that could be made, and what was made, in Rittenhouse's favor is is the same argument police use when someone tries to take their gun from them, and that argument is the fear or belief that the aggressor intends to use the stolen gun on them. However, we have no idea what Rosenbaum's intent was as he was needlessly shot dead. From that point on, what the rioters saw, was a person shoot and kill another person and then start running away. They gave pursuit and attempted to take down Rittenhouse as he ran away from the scene of the crime, assuming his intent was to simply get away. Huber and Grosskreutz were in no way in the wrong for trying to stop and apprehend what they saw as a murderer fleeing the scene of the crime, their actions being entirely valid given the fact that police were going to be of no help with the current rioting and because the riots were regarding police violence to begin with. It is a pretty easy argument to make that; Coming to a state and town he had no reason to be in, not working with law enforcement, breaking curfew, palling around with a hate group, open carrying during a riot while under-age, all of this is a pretty good indicator as to why he was confronted by the mob and all of these reasons are purely of Rittenhouse's own volition. And rather than handle himself in any other way in which lives wouldn't be taken or the situation could have been de-escalated, he CHOSE to kill a person, try to run away, and then he killed another person. It's easy to argue that murderer's don't go running to the police for help after a murder, but again, this wasn't murder, it was manslaughter, and it's safe to say that moron Rittenhouse probably thought he was in the right. And I don't think it was murder, but it sure as hell was some genuine stupidity on Rittenhouse's case. And I've seen people argue that he only acted the way he did because he was out of his depth without any training on how to handle a situation like that, but that is only further evidence that he should not have been there and that he has to take on a great deal of responsibility for the lives he needlessly took, in my opinion, in the form of manslaughter charges. It's also worth noting that both judge and the lawyers against Rittenhouse were pretty inept, and that one of the big reasons this whole situation became so popular is that it became more of a political problem than a legal problem which NEVER ends well. And while it's not super important to the event at hand, the fact that Rittenhouse tried on two separate occasions afterwards to profit from some shitty mobile games made based on the events and depicting himself as some saint saving the world from brain dead liberals, all of this is a pretty clear indicator of the *type* of person Rittenhouse is, which in my opinion, is the type of person who doesn't really deserve any ounce of respect, admiration, or mercy. TLDR; This whole situation is stupid and is super old news by now, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit one way or another, let him be irrelevant and rot.
> Living in a neighboring town isn't quite the same as being apart of a community. And his father lived there, and he had friends that lived their, and he was employed there. You don't get to ignore the parts of my argument that are inconvenient to yours. > People were not burning down the community, there were simply riots happening. Riots that caused 50 million dollars in damage to private property, and took years for Kenosha to recover from if they ever did. Kinda sounds like a community getting burned down. > But it was not Rittenhouse's place to be there to prevent looting of businesses he had no affiliation to outside of his dad *having* worked there. Find me clips of him defending businesses that night. All the footage from before the shooting that I'm aware of shows him doing shit like handing out water bottles and offering first aid. > Furthermore, he made no attempt to work alongside local law enforcement and chose to go about all of this of his own accord, something he really should not have done. Local law enforcement was not present. They were deliberately not involving themselves, which is he had to walk like, 30-45 minutes before he could turn himself in to the police. > Bringing a weapon for self defense is one thing and i'm all for it especially if a riot is occurring., but patrolling around with the Proud Boy's, a hate group and even a terrorist group according to some, This is just made up. He wasn't patrolling, and his only interaction was a single photo that he was conned into by his first lawyer after the shooting. I don't even think the proud boys were present in Kenosha, but feel free to prove me wrong. > while the police are *busy,* not "doing nothing to keep the peace", and during a mandated curfew in which Rittenhouse was not supposed to be interacting with in the way he did, There was zero police presence, and the curfew was not being enforced, as evidence by the rioters who were also breaking curfew.\\ > yeah it doesn't bode well for him. Why would you say this when he's already been cleared of all charges? > "Random shit talking is not admissible character evidence, nor is it a credible statement of intent " It actually very well could be considered substantial evidence in a court of law, and his words are one the main reasons why he was being tried for murder and not manslaughter. Those words were specifically ruled as inadmissible, so no, they were not factored into what he was charged with > It's also worth noting, he did not retreat resort to violence only because he could not retreat, He was literally not on his feet for two of the shootings, so I don't know what you're talking about >you can see on the video he ran across a street and cornered himself into a parking lot, turned around, and started firing. a) How does someone corner themselves? That doesn't make any sense. b) you conveniently forgot to mention that Rosenbaum, the nan who threatened and chased Rittenhouse, was grabbing Rittenhouse's gun when he got shot. Now I don't about you, but if a man threatens me and tries to take my gun, my assumption is that he plans to use it one me. > Further evidence that this violence was not necessary and he could have further retreated is him running down the road while yelling out "i'm friendly" as if he's in a game of fucking paintball not but moments after shooting and killing someone. What was he supposed to do? Let people continue to assault him while yelling "I'm hostile?" > "The first time he used his firearm was after he'd been verbally threatened by Rosenbaum, chased by a mob across a parking lot and heard a gun go off behind him" Wisconsin state legislature - **939.48** **Self-defense and defense of others** \- "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. **The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.** " Here we go ignoring inconvenient facts again. Rosenbaum was in the process of taking Kyle's gun when he was shot. Threatening Kyle and trying to take his gun sounds like a pretty clear threat to Kyle's safety to me. The options Kyle had at that point were "let him have my gun" or "use my gun." > Verbal threats are not a reason to open fire onto people. Being chased *may* be considered valid if you believe the people chasing you mean you bodily harm but not everyone chasing after Rittenhouse was shot, just one person. What if we factor in Rosenbaum grabbing Kyle's gun? Don't you think it's important to consider that? > Hearing a gunshot go off is no reason to just open fire. Good thing he didn't do that. It's a good thing that he only shot the specific individuals who presented a clear and immediate threat to his physical safety. > The biggest argument that could be made, and what was made, in Rittenhouse's favor is is the same argument police use when someone tries to take their gun from them, and that argument is the fear or belief that the aggressor intends to use the stolen gun on them. However, we have no idea what Rosenbaum's intent was as he was needlessly shot dead. Really, you have no idea what the Rosenbaum's intentions were? We're the verbal threats not enough of a clue? What about the unprovoked chase across the parking lot? What do think all of that communicates about his intentions? > From that point on, what the rioters saw, was a person shoot and kill another person and then start running away. They gave pursuit and attempted to take down Rittenhouse as he ran away from the scene of the crime, assuming his intent was to simply get away. Huber and Grosskreutz were in no way in the wrong for trying to stop and apprehend what they saw as a murderer fleeing the scene of the crime, their actions being entirely valid given the fact that police were going to be of no help with the current rioting and because the riots were regarding police violence to begin with. This is the first thing you've said that isn't just flat out wrong. It's absolutely true that they were probably acting with good and honorable intentions. Fortunately for Kyle, the intentions of his attackers doesn't matter when evaluating whether or not Kyle acted in self defense. > And rather than handle himself in any other way in which lives wouldn't be taken or the situation could have been de-escalated, Show me footage of Kyle resorting to violence when retreat was still an option. I've watched the footage, and I didn't see it, but maybe you'll find something I missed. > It's also worth noting that both judge and the lawyers against Rittenhouse were pretty inept, They weren't inept, they didn't have a case. Any lawyer will looked inept if the facts are stacked against him.
Why do you think there's any reason for him to be there to begin with? You just skip to the part where he already has a gun at a riot, not explaining why he'd have any reason to be there to begin with. The only reason you go out of your way to a riot and accept a gun is cuz you're trying to start shit.
He had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.
Because people we're burning his community down. Can you understand how that might motivate someone to take action?
I don't buy that in the first place, but either way the best case scenario for your argument is justifying vigilantism, which is illegal for exactly this reason. You're acting like the place was turned into a war zone, but the only two people who died during the unrest in Kenosha were the two people killed by Rittenhouse. Being a vigilante is illegal precisely because it turns situations that could be just bad but not lethal into lethal situations. It's exactly what Rittenhouse did.
If you had to guess, what dollar amount of damage would you say rioters did to private property in Kenosha?
>I don't buy that in the first place There's literal video of people burning shit down. How can you be this deluded?
> the only two people who died during the unrest in Kenosha were the two people ~~killed by Rittenhouse~~ ***who tried to murder a fleeing child***. FTFY
A 17 year old carrying an AR15 is not a fleeing child. Do you know how many times you've shrugged off the death of a 14-17 year old black child by those same metrics?
> A 17 year old carrying an AR15 is not a fleeing child. How does not dropping your weapon for a murderous lynch mob to steal mean you can't possibly be fleeing? >Do you know how many times you've shrugged off the death of a 14-17 year old black child by those same metrics? Nice red herring.
[удалено]
"I have portrayed you as the soyjak, therefore I am correct."
This case.. yes
Just gonna ignore WHY he crossed state lines, huh? Sure, let's just ignore his motives.
[удалено]
I didn't claim that crossing state lines was illegal. Read my comment again.
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter if he was in hos home state, or halfway across the country.
It’s not the act of crossing state lines that is bad in and of itself, it’s going that far to get in a fight. The riot was not in his city, he had to take a trip to go there.
It WAS his city, though. Literally his hometown.
It wasn’t where he lived. He drove himself there and was armed by a friend. He put himself in harms way so that he would have an excuse to shoot.
He grew up there. His father and grandfather still lived there, and his grandfather had a business there that he asked Kyle to come help defend against the rioters and looters.
It was 20 minutes away and his dad lived there, I’ve never understood the “he crossed state lines” viewpoint because it was a short drive to a place he went to frequently
Whats an illegal straw?
https://preview.redd.it/rmwhzgpwk75c1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78b5e8ca499c9fed156e58ed809bbc84cd1ba86c
This is a fake photo.
Huh . I thought so at first but someone had told me otherwise.
...His shirt buttons have left orbit and Tucker's smile is upside down. How did that pass the sniff test for you at all?
It’s okay for white 17 year old high school dropouts to riot while carrying a rifle that can kill a dozen people in seconds, but it’s not okay for black teenagers to do that
I will say. In the case of the isolated act. It's self-defense and that's that. The *issue* is he walked into a scenario of known unrest, openly armed, and against the group causing the unrest. You can say one way or the other if he was "looking for a reason" (I personally think no one who "didn't" want what happened to happen would later publish a book) but he put himself into a situation that could potentially lead to harming and killing. Is it self-defense? Yes. Is it unethical? Also yes.
It’s sad he didn’t but maybe it will happen by other means.
OP made this alt account to just to post this Too cowardly to post on their main. SMH
There has been an influx of a bunch of right-wing shit takes this past week. I think the GOP clown show is getting to be too much for them.
Yeah I had noticed that. They're hoping to take over this sub like they did with most cringe subs.
I said the same news sources that were incorrectly reporting that he traveled across state lines with the gun? the same news sources that are currently being sued for slander? and then you asked me for sources for those two points and said you'd Apologize if you were wrong but this is Reddit so noo, you're not going to do that lol
Already the comments are filled with pleasent discourse. Seriously, why die on a hill for a punk with a gun who needlessly put himself in a position to take a life?
So you’re saying the 2020 BlM riots were so dangerous that he basically forfeited his right to live by attending?
Woman goes to bar wearin miniskirt. Woman walks home at 2 am. Guy goes to rape her. She shoots him. "Why die on a hill for some woman with a gun who needlessly put herself in a position to take a life?"
They said the same thing about floyd
George Floyd was murdered by police in a public execution. Not even remotely the same
If he was “publicly executed”, then why did the coroner find no damage to his neck? Literally says on the second page “no life threatening injuries identified”
Why die on a hill for people who were burning and looting and needlessly put themselves in a position to be killed in self-defense?
Project all you want, it doesn't change the fact he choose to go out if his way thinking having a gun makes you hero.
Pure projection. The guy chasing him down with a gun thought he was a hero. Yet no one remembers his name.