T O P
EU4ia_1444

To me it seems he sought out a fight. He bought a gun (despite being under 18, so therefore illegally) and crossed state lines to a protest where he provoked people. Said people tried to remove the deadly assault weapon from him and he shot them. He shot one person 6 times, which isn’t really necessary in self defense (in my opinion). Unless I’m missing something (please tell me if I am), he is definitely not completely innocent.


davarino1

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be acting like he was sitting there doing his school work when suddenly someone came out of nowhere and attacked him. He chose to go into a riot and bring a firearm. It is despicable behavior, though I guess not illegal. ​ "Bro, I wish I had my fucking AR. I'd start shooting rounds at them." - Rittenhouse outside a CVS being looted. ​ This is not a good person who should be held up as a gun rights martyr. His friend who bought the gun for him is facing more consequences because it was illegal for Rittenhouse to have the gun in the first place.


WhichComfortable0

Yeah, he illegally took a gun to a protest where he was ideologically opposed to the protesters, and has claimed he was there on the protestors' behalf as a medic! What the hell is that shit! Technically he could and should be prosecuted for a gun violation, but that doesn't seem likely, and as a minor (at the time) he would just end up with a small amount of probation AT BEST. Since the jury decided he wasn't guilty, there isn't much left by way of meaningful prosecution.


EU4ia_1444

Also, he went there to apparently defend a car dealership, and although the first killing was near it, the provocation was at least a block away, and the other two people he shot were nowhere near the dealership. I recently saw the videos, and I now am certain that it was not self-defense.


hoffnoob1

Good question, what do we actually think about a white supremacist teen taking his or his friend's military grade weaponry to kill political opponents (potentially including comrades) ? And don't even start with the property thing, the owner of said property never asked him nor anyone to protect it and the killings didn't happened in the vicinity of said property. Adding to that, there are apparently recording of him saying he wanted to shot protester, and at least a year ago there was testimony saying he pointed his guns at people without a good reason. For disclosure, I'm not American. My thought are, "the fact that so many people defend this fascist doer, is a larger step towards white supremacy in the USA than the election of Trump".


WhichComfortable0

I heard Rittenhouse on tv recently and was shocked to hear this was all over the defense of *property* (specifically cars). WTF. I wouldn't want someone to have to die to save my car from possible harm unless I WAS IN IT, and even then a true risk assessment with slow escalation would be proper. Even die-hard gun enthusiasts know that you don't pull your gun unless you are prepared to *kill someone*. Obviously target-shooting and such are excluded, but carrying in public is meant for self-defense, not defending some stranger's fucking CAR.


aurora_69

I don't care if somebody pointed a gun at him, since he did that very thing first and nobody *shot* him like he did to them


Jonpaddy

It is bad. They want to kill us, and now know they can.


WhichComfortable0

Well, if the DA wanted to, s/he could charge Rittenhouse with a gun violation, I suppose. It wouldn't affect his determination of guilt in this trial. But they can choose not to prosecute any case, pretty much. I haven't heard or read his testimony, but I did overhear him on Fox news (it's my parents' choice, not mine), where he said he "felt his life was in danger." I don't think he directly said the other party's was pointed directly at him, or if it was pointed in his general direction, or if it was even out of its holster. That person would also have had open-carry privileges, unless they were a felon or underage or otherwise restricted. I suppose that if the gun was in the other party's hand, as opposed to holstered, it might be hard to say (at night, in the heat of conflict), if it was actually pointed at Rittenhouse or ever represented a genuine "threat to his life." It would also be impossible to speculate what went on in Rittenhouse's head, so we kind of have to rely on his reported *feeling* that his life was in danger, as opposed to whether his life was objectively in danger. (So we can deduce that the other party's gun was probably not safely ensconced in its holster.) That's objective. Now, personally - I was raised around guns, which were carried both openly and concealed, legally or illegally. We were raised that you don't pull your gun unless you are prepared to kill someone. That means they were "ethically" (according to my dad, and also me), probably in the wrong for having pulled guns. And Rittenhouse had no business either being there in the first place OR carrying a gun. He brought a gun to a knife fight (actually it didn't need to be any physical altercation) and, unsurprisingly, someone died. Fuck him for all the above.


[deleted]

My simple thought is self defense ruling is correct. But with that said the precedent set basically makes it easier for white supremacy to run rampant and for right wing extremists to use vigilantism as an excuse to murder those who politically disagree with them. My hope would be for Kyle to open his eyes and get out of the Proud Boys grasp, he obviously had connections with them, he's still a kid so I think he can change as a person. The odd thing was when he went on tucker carlson he said he supported the BLM movement which even made right wingers go insane and immediately say he's a bad person (ironic). Im pro 2nd amendment and defending yourself but it was morally wrong for him to go their and do what he did, but I mainly blame the proud boys and the group he was part of for putting those ideas in his head. I'm only hoping shit doesn't get even worse.


Matthewlovestomine

Down vote me as you please, I think it's 100% correct


CuttyMcButts

100% justified. You had it backwards, Kyle was carrying legally while Gaige Grosskreutz (the coward who tried to kill Kyle) was carrying illegally. Downvotes for the truth huh? Take political tribalism out of it and go by the facts, folks. Living in a fantasyland where we lie to ourselves to perpetuate elite-driven agendas does us no good at all.


mikmckn

Rittenhouse was not carrying legally. Wisconsin law prohibits 17 year olds from possesing firearms without adult supervision unless they're in the armed forces.


CuttyMcButts

Wisconsin law allows full length rifles and shotguns to be carried by 16 and up, which is exactly why that charge was dropped in court. Tell the truth.


mikmckn

Wisconsin statute 948.60 (2) says you're wrong. It's very specific about people under 18 not going armed with a dangerous weapon. The judge dismissed it because he said it was confusing, not because Wisconsin permits kids to walk around with rifles. Why don't you try some of that truth you're talking about?


CuttyMcButts

Because I'm not the one that's lying. The language of the law means that Kyle was legally carrying that night. I'm certain there would be no circumstances that would change your mind because you get your information from echo chamber memes and media misrepresentation.


mikmckn

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 Sorry, but no. You don't get to use that particular cop out. Read the law for yourself. It's pretty clear on needing to be 18 in WI to be in possession of a dangerous weapon, like I said. There are only two exceptions; adult supervision and armed forces service. Rittenhouse qualifies for neither. The last section in 948.60 says that section only applies if the person is also guilty of 941.28. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28 Since the rifle wasn't an SBR, that enhancement doesn't apply. Leaving us with the original statute which prohibits underage possession. The judge may have been confused by it, but I'm not. No memes. No media. He got snowed by confusing language and a good defense attorney or he wanted to drop the charge to prevent the jury from considering it.


emperor000

You are so wrong about this it's scary. You need to read that law a few more times.


mikmckn

Nah. I'm dead on accurate.


emperor000

No, you aren't. You are wrong about the law. It forbids those below 18 from carrying items in the list of deadly weapons. It has an exception in the case of rifles and shotguns when the person is NOT iniolation of 2 other sections, one that defines short barreled rifles and shotguns and one that requires people younger than 16 to meet other requirements. Kyle did not have a short barreled rifle and wasn't under 16. So his rifle was carried legally.


mikmckn

You are wrong. There are two exceptions in that law. One for direct adult supervision, the other for armed forces service. If you aren't excepted by those two, you are in violation of the law. The SBR is not an exception, it's an enhancement. It makes little logical sense to undo an entire law if the suspect is not in violation of federal law, which is what 941.28 refers to; it's Wisconsin's prohibition against SBR and SBS weapons unless the person is in compliance with federal law on short barreled weapons. What 948.60 (3)(c) says is that it applies if the person is in violation of 941.28. Since Rittenhouse wasn't in violation of 941.28, he doesn't get the felony enhancement. He just gets the original underage possession charge. It's pretty clear, I don't know why people have so much trouble reading English.


CuttyMcButts

If only the judge were as competent and unbiased as yourself, lol


WhichComfortable0

That is for hunting animals, not protestors. I will grant that the statue may not specify that, but it's the intent.


CuttyMcButts

You keep saying "protestors", but the peaceful protests had ended hours earlier. Violent criminals out starting fires and destroying everything in sight are rioters, not protestors.


WhichComfortable0

Okay, cool, cause your bro Rittenhouse went on tv and said he was there to serve as a medic "for the protestors." So, glad to know the protest was over.


CuttyMcButts

How astute and intellectually honest of you