America's Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse

[ManOnFire]

I expected Kyle Rittenhouse to be found not guilty. In the days leading up to the verdict, I followed the details closely enough and already came to my own conclusion that he was going to be let off.

It was already set up that way. The judge pretty much didn't even hide the fact that he was all in for Rittenhouse, and he dropped the weapons charges which helped keep any major conviction at bay. And he openly scolded the prosecutor, which journalists and legal experts said was even unprofessional.

“Technically he did nothing wrong"

I love the way a lot of people always try to use laws and technicality to support or excuse these criminals - including some of my own co-workers. By law a 17 year-old can possess a machine gun rifle, but not a semi-automatic handgun. This in itself is standard American legal perversion and imbalance. Why in the world would a 17 year-old be able to possess a rifle but not a smaller handgun?

Also, anyone who could possibly believe Rittenhouse’s story that he went out there as some kind of medic to protect protestors or businesses, and that he “defended himself,” is no less of a fool. There was no need to defend himself with that rifle. Rittenhouse went out to the protests hoping he would have a reason to use the weapon, hoping someone would provoke him, or that major violence in some form would take shape enough for him to fire shots, and probably hoping some would see him as a hero. And he got his wish.

Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum

His defense attorneys argued that Rosenbaum, or one of the other two men Rittenhouse shot, threatened him or came at him, giving the teen a reason to use the weapon. Even if this really were the case, someone who was out there that night just to stand by as a medic or protect businesses wouldn’t have carried a rifle with him, he most likely would’ve had a pistol hidden on him until it was seriously time to use it. But instead Rittenhouse openly displayed a heavy weapon in the hopes that he would be provoked to use it.

Rittenhouse would’ve been convicted if it were the other way around

And deep down, whether the other side wants to admit it or not, we all know that. If he was a black teen who killed those three men with that rifle, all the weapons laws and technicalities would be completely ignored. The judge would’ve left the weapons charges on the table. And all the conservatives who support guns and love to say, “You don’t understand how the law works” would not be saying any of those things. Black males with guns terrify conservatives and the legal system.

Furthermore, if Rittenhouse was a black teen he would’ve been convicted far faster and even faster than an adult white male held on trial for the same crime. Even worse, if he was a black teen with conservative views and the three people he shot were also black, he would not be convicted at all.

The jury who gave the final verdict - who Rittenhouse was allowed to randomly select at the behest of the judge who said “I think people feel better when they have control.” - was made up of seven women and five men. When juries are given more women than men it’s to even out the chances of a person on trial getting harsher charges. Which probably worked in even this case, as the women jurors most likely felt like they wouldn’t want to convict a kid and see him go to prison for life, even though he didn’t think like a kid when he brought a rifle to the riots and used it. Again, if it were the other way around, the jury probably would not have looked at it this way.

The bias was already there. As we saw through the case, the judge was all in to defend Rittenhouse. As I said in the beginning of this Take, I expected him to be found not guilty. It was no surprise to me. America failed again. But I think what is more disturbing than the actual justice system is a society that says it's okay or was perfectly correct for a boy with a rifle to be let off the hook, when they would not at all be saying the same things if Rittenhouse was a teen of color.

#kylerittenhouse

[purplepoppy]

One simple question. If I walked into an American police station and said I wanted to help out in the riots, would they give me a rifle and send me to wander about without any training? Probably not, even regular police officers wouldn't be sent in unless they had competed riot training.
It seems ludicrous that a guy who's barely started shaving can just turn up and have a go without any training, backup or accountability.

[ManOnFire]

Excellent point.

[purplepoppy]

No one is arguing that rioting is good or the people he killed were nice people. The point is it wasn't his responsibility to sort it out. There are people trained to deal with those situations who have procedures they have to follow and most importantly can be held accountable. Idiots like Rittenhouse inflame things and make them worse

[Joker_]

rioting is good

[BillyBalls]

Kyle was held accountable for his righteous actions.

Why are you more worried about rioters? If the three idiot Rittenhouse shot were not there causing havoc, they would not have been shot. They bad behavior got them shot.

[purplepoppy]

Bad behaviour does not carry the death sentence. If a judge cannot sentence you to death why can a civilian?

[BillyBalls]

The three guys who were shot put themselves in a bad situation.

Any smart person knows not to fuck with a guy with a gun.

The one idiot thought his skateboard was a good weapon to use against a guy with a gun. The skateboard lost and now the world is a better place.

My father always told me. Don't do stupid things and bad things won't happen.

Fucking with a guy with a gun is the epitome of stupid.

[hahahmm]

There's a false premise in what you say. There is accountability when you shoot somebody in self-defense. Police investigate. A prosecutor determines if there's a court case.. maybe by trying to railroad an innocent person by keeping relevant evidence secret as the prosecutor in this case did. Then there's a trial, if needed. You know, a little thing called the legal system is used. Oh, and as far as his age.. he's the exact same age that guys are allowed into the military. And I'm sure he did have some kind of training. Only somebody who just knows guns from tv and movies would think it's easy to hit a moving target with a rifle at close range even without any stress/pressure. It's way harder when somebody is trying to kill you and there's a crowd of potential attackers behind you too. Next.

[007kingifrit]

people have a right to bear arms. and a right to defend property. simple as that.

no training required to be a hero

[bean2k21]

Sometimes people get behind the wheel of a car and get drunk and crash into innocent people. That doesn't mean we should all use public transportation.

[Jouth]

It's fucked up. He's an idiot and he shouldn't have done that. He might be a naive kid who had no clue what he was heading into.

But when people attack you physically, you have a right to defend yourself.

If you want to win a Darwin award by hitting the guy holding a 30 round AR-15 with your skateboard, you're probably going to die.

I feel like the problem is that everyone is trying to play the police. Kyle Rittenhouse who decided he needed to be an armed presence at the Riots, and the protesters who decided he needed to be disarmed. All parties are in the wrong. And its awful that people lost their lives.

I just wish those who pulled the strings would prevent these things, or at least stop causing them.

[Exterminatore]

@purple

Having served honorably in the U. S. Marine Cops, having deployed twice, and having participated in 2 campaigns I can tell you a few things for certain.

1. He may not have had any formal training but he had some training on some level. I’ve noticed multiple pictures where his finger was straight and off the trigger when not firing. This is one thing police will use to help identify a suspect if his identity is not known. That’s basic training 101 you will find in anyone who has had combat training. I’ve been out of the Corps for several years now and I still do that every time I handle a weapon. Might seem obvious, however believe me when I tell you most people who have not been formally trained in the military or police do not do that.

2. Considering the circumstances he handled himself gracefully and with poise. He was only 17 at the time and kept a cooler head than I would have and I’ve been shot at multiple times.

3. He only missed 2 shots. Granted they were exceedingly close range.

4. He very clearly meant to preserve life. Frankly if it were I and I was running away from a mob there would be many more bodies. I’d have ran to the first place I found cover (anything capable of potentially stopping incoming rounds), I’d have take a knee, anyone who approached me and got closer than 25 yards would have gotten dropped and there is no way in hell I’d miss a man sized target at 25 yards. I would not turn my back to any potential attackers, and further more there is no way I’d let anyone get close enough to grab the muzzle of my rifle. If there was no cover I’d have deemed close enough based on the mobs pursuit, I’d have taken a knee and started dropping anyone advancing on me within 100 yards or less.

4. This kid could have easily amassed 25 or more kills if he’d wanted to, instead he only shot those that were close enough to touch him. So far as I’m concerned anyone pursing me is a threat and gets dumped, pure and simple.

[bean2k21]

@purplepoppy Better be careful, we've called in the amphibious infantry!

[Texaskid1]

@purplepoppy 1. In the US people have the right to have guns and they have the right to defend themselves. As far as I am concerned we should not always depend on the government to protect us 24/7.

2. If you watch the video you will notice that he actually does have some level of training - also , to get a gun permit in the US you need to take several courses that involve arms laws , how to handle a weapon , how to care for it etc.

3. Yes we have accountability - Rittenhouse was arrested and tried by a jury of his peers and found not guilty. That is the system in the US. The purpose of the jury is to serve as a counter balance to the power of the state. If he would have been found guilty he would of be locked up for life. The accountability was - and is - very real. I am sure the kid will have a fat legal bill to pay and will have to watch his back for years to come.

Everybody - and I mean everybody - has a natural right to defend themselves.

Would you of rather have Rittenhouse sit there and let the mob beat him to death? What do you think they were going to do to him? Pat him on the head and give him some candy?

These people wanted to kill him. People can say that he should of not been there and that he brought this upon himself. Wrong - he has a right to be out in public and those people had no right to attack him. Period.

[Texaskid1]

If a women goes to a bar wearing a provocative mini-skirt does that mean she is asking to be raped? Of course not. I can walk through a bad area but this does not mean other people have the right to attack me.

I have traveled from coast to coast and have been in areas of NYC , Miami , Los Angeles , Houston , Dallas where I was walking around looking over my shoulder ever 10 seconds and I would stay away from most people. I could of started some shit with some of those people but it was also possible that they would have dropped me too. But I did not start shit with those people and well... here I am behind a computer screen...

I feel no sympathy for those people that attacked him. They got what they deserved.

[bean2k21]

@Texaskid1 Yeah, the Founding Fathers were saying, in not so many words, 'Hey, go ahead and get yourself a gun instead of trusting the government, because one day, you may not have a government you trust.' Sounds like perfect wisdom to me.

[Waldoe]

I think he acted like all citizens should, if there had been 50 Kyles, the rioters would have RUN...

[Jouth]

Yeah well they attacked him to make physical contact with him after chasing him before he opened fire.

And he only killed a couple riot rats or such, no big people so it is ok.

And then the court say self defense. Why? Because it was self defense you absolute vegetable.

[bean2k21]

Have gun will travel!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyUpBibqgfE

[ThisDudeHere]

@purplepoppy "it wasn't his responsibility to sort it out. "
That kind of attitude is why riots go unchecked in recent years. If only there were more people like Kyle, the world would be a better place.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Honestly the same people who claim to care about facts so much on this website are doing everything to dodge the legal facts of this case, these clowns are actually hilarious lol

[BillyBalls]

The legal facts lead to the correct verdict.

Those who deny legal facts tend to deny scientific facts too.

[SpiderManFan2002]

No, not really. The legal facts, suggest that he had no business being there in the first place, and he himself provoked the situation. The legal facts also suggest that it doesn’t matter what crimes the individuals he murdered committed he still had no right to kill them- yet I see people in this comment section such as yourself and others disregarding these facts.

[BillyBalls]

He had every legal right as the rioters who were actually committing criminal acts.

Do you think the three scumbags he shot were actually there to peacefully protest.

The scumbags he shot should not have been there. If they were not there they would not have gotten shot.

They are the cause of their own shootings and deaths.

[Avicenna]

@BillyBalls: European leftists think they know everything but usually know nothing.

[007kingifrit]

WE are dodging the legal facts? which facts are we dodging? he had a right to carry the gun, and a right to use it

[Fuentes]

Lol Wisconsin is an open carry state if you actually WATCHED the video of all the moments you see a stupid kid who should not have been there with a LOADED AR and dumb asses surrounding him taunting and making threats & then attacking him and trying to jump him and slap him over the head with a skateboard every single dumb ass who attacked him deserved to be shot dead because it became self defense. This isn't the UK where their isn't such things as open carry.

[Razor8]

"... and he himself provoked the situation. "

You didn't watch one second of the trial did you? Lol

[Avicenna]

@Razor8: Leftists just get their talking pints from their propaganda outfits. European leftists are the worst when it comes to doing that.

[Fuentes]

@Avicenna i noticed Liberal SJW's are so radical they think they can beat bullets up. It's pretty sad at this point. Especially people who can't accept we have open carry states so why was everyone offended by his loaded AR? In a state that normally operates that way day or night.

[Razor8]

@Avicenna I thought the kid was guilty having read news reports about this case since it happened last year. Even on this site 2-3 weeks ago I said he was 100% guilty. Then I watched the trial and the eyewitness testimonies, and video evidence and it's shocking that this kid was even being charged. The narrative from the media was very misleading. An English and Irish newspaper claimed he shot 3 black men which we all know is false. Lol

[SpiderManFan2002]

Lol for the record, I don’t really care about your replies but just some food for thought- I’m certainly not a leftist or a liberal or an SJW💀 so please stop thinking political buzzwords make your argument stronger, just saying🥰Enjoy your circus though🥲💀

[Avicenna]

@Razor8: Yeah, it was disgraceful how much the media lied about it. People need to wake up.

[Cheechee4me]

I mean it doesn’t matter about the legality anymore- he was found not guilty.

[Fuentes]

You came to argue case law as if every state is the same someone gives you facts everytime and you cry if you here to watch a circus then say that instead of spewing out ignorant statements and trying to argue false narratives. Your just upset your wrong and im here to prove it to you. And so are many others Fact is Wisconsin is an open carry state & more facts the minute you charge anyone in the US with a loaded AR you will be shot dead it's common sense. I don't know where you crazies think you can beat bullets up but you can't and now your arguing that he should have let people attack him and beat him with objects? Because everyone deserves to live? What world do you live in? Facts are if people are attacking you and someone has a weapon as a skateboard and another a pistol.

It becomes self defense and simple case law here in the states you're allowed to meet force with force. Don't start to backtrack once you realized how wrong you are & that's why he was aquitted their are so many cases like that even Snoop Dogg and others have been aquitted for these crimes this isn't the UK get over it

[Avicenna]

@Fuentes: Exactly

[Waldoe]

he was found Not guilty, that is a legal FACT

[Jersey2]

SpiderMan would have gone. Too bad Rittenhouse didn’t have webs but one must make do with what one has.

[Screamsgutter]

@Fuentes They weren't offended by his AR-15 'cuz his wasn't the only one there with one. There's footage of a bunch of people milling around the gas station and I saw two, maybe three other people have one.

[rxm_bxl]

I agree with much of what you said. 10000% if Rittenhouse was black he would have been convicted without a doubt and furthermore, yes, he would have been tried a lot quicker- that I agree. I also agree with you when you ask the question of ‘why someone who is offering first aid’ has a gun in full display. To this I’m sure it relates to Rittenhouse protecting some property from the rioter’s harm- yet nonetheless, it is quite strange to connect someone assisting the injured, whilsts having a weapon to cause injuries on their persons at the same time.

My main issue with the case in general, stems from the amount of force Rittenhouse used on the first deceased. All those bullets 3-5 (somewhere between there if I remember correctly) we’re not necessary to stop the potential danger that Rittenhouse thought the deceased posed to him. One bullet is enough to stop the threat. This is derived from the main elements needed to claim self defense. I understand these elements are different in that specific state in the US, but nonetheless, the element of force by the person claiming self defense has to equate that which is being posed to them. This could have been argued by the prosecution- separate from its identity as an element of self defense. The guy who had followed or chased Rittenhouse was unarmed- by virtue of that already, although being chased- Rittenhouse was always in a superior position to the deceased- due to the possession of the gun. If Rittenhouse had to shoot- fine- but multiple bullets- that amount of force was in no way necessary. There’s a big chance that had he used the correct amount of force needed to subdue the perceived threat- the deceased could have lived. The survival of one bullet is more likely than that of 3-5. This is just roughly but could have stood a chance against the measurement of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Of course here you could also argue that Rittenhouse has a history of handling weapons so even if what I said happened, he may have had a good target- which may have lead to the same result- even if only one bullet was discarded- I think this would be a stretch for the defense though. So the prosecution may have had a strong case here. I would have encouraged the prosecution to have emphasized more on the first shooting than the others.

The other shootings were lawfully justifiably, though still with small glitches here and there. Even watching the video though, that is how self defense mainly plays out.
In the end I’ve noticed most prosecutors just want convictions- but I rather just fairness with the understanding that “shit happens at times”- however one is still supposed to act reasonably when such happens. Therefore, judge the actions of the accused by the conduct of a reasonable person- wherever they deviate (taking into account a lottttttt of stuff here), this is where fault lies. In this case Rittenhouse’ conduct deviated when he shot the first deceased multiple times- the others were reasonable. There laid the conviction.
I can talk law all day- but that was always my main issue.

[BluishGaze]

You may have followed the case closely, but I guess you haven't followed the riots closely... perhaps due to poor mainstream coverage, since you're calling them "protests."

The Black Lives Matter riots have been extremely violent, dragging on for 100+ days across the country, after basically every police shooting/killing involving a black person, regardless of whether or not it was a justified. And even for ones that were not justified, like George Floyd and Brianna Taylor... the response from "protesters" were always the same. Destruction and Abolition.

The riots had looting, shootings, the burning down of businesses, and death everywhere... so naturally YOU WOULD BE ARMED, just like Gaige Grosskreutz was armed. You're merely upset that Rittenhouse was armed with a larger, scarier-looking gun that the media frequently freaks out over. I'm not sure if it was actually an AR-15, but it doesn't matter because the AR-15 is basically similar to most hunting rifles and handguns, being that they are all semi-automatic... And if you do not know what semi-automatic means, then you have no business talking about firearms.

You're accusing a teenager of "hoping to provoke" a swarm of idiots to overwhelm him and potentially beat him to death. Again, an AR-15 is not a "machine gun" that can easily mow down a crowd. The reason Rittenhouse was chased down was because he shot Rosenbaum. Then word spread of an active shooter, and several "protesters" thought it was a good idea to chase a teen armed with a rifle assault him and attempt to apprehend him, despite the fact that he was running toward the police anyway. Honestly, there should be Darwin awards given out here.

If Rittenhouse was there with the sole intention to kill people, he would have probably had no issue shooting at EVERYONE that chased him... but in case you missed the footage, Kyle ONLY shot at those who tried to approach him a little TOO close. This includes Gaige Grosskreutz, who had his illegally concealed pistol out when Kyle shot him at arms reach.

Not to give Rittenhouse ALL the credit, however... I have seen interviews with him after the verdict, and it's REALLY strange how easily he seems to have shaken off this traumatic experience of having taken away 3 lives... And yes, too many people have called him a "hero," which pisses me off... but that's about all I have against him.

The ONLY argument you have against Kyle is that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Being a teenager with a babyface like his, people likely did not take him seriously. Otherwise, any person with a pair of braincells wouldn't think it smart to mess with an armed civilian. But once you've looked into Rosenbaum's criminal history, it almost makes sense why he would start something with Kyle.

[readyplayer001]

race race race, we could argue that all day. even with the Oj Simpson trial to this day. I am not white but he was in fear for his life after being threatened many times by Rosenbaum.

the prosecutor was a moron and inept watching him was like a train wreck in progress.

Rittenhouse kept his composure, never changed his detailed line of events that happened, he clearly is shaken by it all. this isn't a guy out there gloating about what he did.
KEEP IN MIND-- these "victims" were hardly upstanding citizens, per their charges they were out to do damage that night

Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.

Huber domestic abuse/violence

such upstanding citizens? yeah sure, they were there for the maylay not in any way innocent im amazed how their charges aren't plastered on the media everywhere? Rosenbaum was there cause he bail jumped from Oklahoma

[user1245322]

thank you!
the people that are complaining below about the people backgrounds annoy them like "shaTTered masterpiece" is really blind to the whole thing then deflects replies by not allowing feedback, their backgrounds tell why they were there? for violence, god knows what ever else

[readyplayer001]

@user1245322 speaks volumes about them. i dont care if Rittenhouse is white, black, Asian, mexican and so on, they also forgot the Rosebaum yelled the n word. and yes if Rosenbaum wouldn't have JUMPED his sentencing in Oklahoma he'd be in jail and not dead, mast of his own fate, unlike the innocent kid victims he raped

[readyplayer001]

master of his own fate***

[Miristheiss]

Boy that was full of biases.

You did a lot of filling in the blanks with your own thoughts/beliefs.

You were reading the mind of the guy... you know why he "really" went down there that night.

Ok.

"It would be different if it were the other way around". So, now you make up a hypothetical situation of race reversal... you predict the the absolute outcome of how your hypothetical would turn out. "If shooter was black... they'd find guilty"... you made that all up and just GUESSED at the outcome and based off of that you want to use that as reasoning for finding this case innocent or guilty.

You ignore all the facts of what ACTUALLY OCCURRED but want to decide the case based off of reading the guys mind and thinking that even matters that he "HOPED" he'd get a chance to shoot someone. You ignore the video and facts and want to decide the case based off "well if he were black I KNOW (you guess) they'd find him guilty.

The facts.
Is it legal to open carry a gun there or not.
A mob chased the fleeing gunman down the street.
They knocked him down.
They had a gun.
They kicked and struck him.
The tried to take the gun.
He fired.
The gentleman who was going toward him held up his hands and backed off once he shot the others. He did not shoot him but let him back off. He just fired a few shots at those attacking him.
Those are the facts. You are getting into corruption, tyranny, bias, respecting of persons when you get into all of that other meaningless BS. "I know what he was thinking when he went down there" No you don't, you aren't omniscient.
"I know they'd find him guilty if he were black". No you don't you are just guessing, using bias, using your own personal agenda and hypotheticals to trump the actual facts and specific details.

[lightbulb27]

One argument is non white people (specifically black/brown) could not get away with this, therefore it's wrong.

My judgement that he was not guilty and acting in self defense was made seeing the video before I could discern color of who was involved. It was clear they were male's, but in the first videos... could not tell who was shot and initially, what color/race he was.

Imagine a group of dark skinned or middle eastern dressed men protecting a building from "white supremacists" protesting. I'd still defend those who are in the right... those defending their rights and assets. I'd like to see this to see how people would react.

Maybe he wanted to be a hero, but I don't see your perception. He was running away from the guy chasing him. When backed into a corner after several times, isolated from others, fought back. Maybe he grew up watching video of Reginald Denny and just didn't like what he saw? And you grew up watching Rodney King beaten by police, and you didn't like that.

You may choose to be loving and kind to "protestor/rioters" to appease them and if your house and business and car is burn up, so be it. I remain true to defendning your right to protect your life and your stuff, and don't care what culture you are.

We are very fortunate to have all the video to see this one in so much details. others won't be so fortunate.

[Stoner710]

You’re full of shit man. First off David Rosenbohm was a convicted child molester that had threatened Kyle Rittenhouse live twice, then he try to grab his gun, I would’ve shot myself I’m 28 years old, I don’t know if you’ve ever been hit over the head with a skateboard for that shit fucking knocks your shit for a loop, he was hit twice before he shot. The other guy who testified in court the lone survivor as a media likes to call him literally brandished a pistol in order to shoot him in the fucking head, Of course this was a clear-cut case of self-defense it doesn’t matter the persons race he would’ve gotten off with self-defense. The idea that he didn’t go there to help his community and provide medical attention for those who were hurt is bullshit. He was a lifeguard at the public pool and one of his friends I asked him if he would defend his business his dad lives in the community what the fuck do you want him to do not go and defend his committee from burning down because a digital rapist decided to go for a knife and get shot in the back seven times after two nights of riots broke out or people were burning down cars and looting and stealing from stores like target there’s nothing he could’ve done except to watch his community burn I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t let that shit happen even watching too much CNN and MSNBC stop it

[t-8900]

Should he have been there? Debatable depending on your views on the Constitution. In some ways we ALL should have been out there fighting against clear acts of treason, which is what was committed by the protestors. Anytime you take up arms against the citizenry it's treason. I disagree with this post. You insert too much opinion instead of just the facts. You make a lot of assumptions based on what you claim to know about what goes on in other's heads. You must be a god to know so much about people you've never met. You make the assumption like every prosecutor is a racist or a bigot. You make the assumption that no black man has ever been found by the eyes of the law to shoot and defend himself against a white man. I assure you that such things have happened and will continue. This was never about race, but people will fling anything and everything at the wall to get something to stick in an effort to attack gun owners everywhere because they hate them.

So instead of leaving a long and drawn out response on everything I'll just leave you with this quote:

lastly I'll say this: the world is a better place having lost one rapist and one wife beater. No one will mourn them and those who live by the sword will die by it.

PS: SKYRIM BELONGS TO THE NORDS!

[t-8900]

*for the eyes of the law to find the black man justified

[the_man57]

Hi. First off there is so much wrong with this. Rittenhouse had been seen for HOURS before the incident helping anyone and everyone who needed it. He genuinely was there to help people. The reason he brought the weapon was because he had seen violent riots previously across the country in the recent days and weeks and he felt he would need to bring protection.
As for your next point about medic not carrying weapons, do medics in the army carry guns? Yes. This was a violent riot. There was absolutely a reason for him to have a gun to defend himself.
The reason for the law about what kind of guns a 17 year old can have is due to the nature of them. Rifles are generally used for hunting game or defense. Handguns however, are more dangerous and are used a many shootings. Therefore, a rifle is much more suitable than a handgun for anyone who does not want to go out and provoke chaos.
I think that you did not watch the trial or follow it until the verdict. I think that you had preconceived notions about America and the situation. I think you are wrong and I hope that you realize how wrong you are.

[Exterminatore]

Not only do medics and corpsmen carry pistols in the military but chaplains do as well if they desire.

[YesICan]

"Rittenhouse went out to the protests //HOPING// he would have a reason to use the weapon, hoping someone would provoke him" -False.

"Rittenhouse would’ve been convicted if it were the other way around
And deep down, whether the other side wants to admit it or not, we all know that. If he was a black teen who killed those three men with that rifle, all the weapons laws and technicalities would be completely ignored." - Just a speculation nothing more.

All you did was write a long text and made it look presentable with a few pictures the use of a few big words, but once you break everything down it's just a giant pile of nothing. I don't understand how can someone be blinded by politics to the point they deny facts and proceed to demonize that kid. Your whole text is nothing more but a giant straw-man argument with a lot of speculations that don't even deserve to be dissected as it's nothing more but a fallacy.

You are ready to demonize a kid that was practicing his right for self-defense and you along with other folks are painting this picture of him as he wanted to shoot people on purpose, and all that just cause he's more leaning to the right when it comes to politics. Which is sick and disturbing to say the least.

[fjh80]

Part 1

Well thought out, but you’re assigning motives to the kid and dismissing what was proven in court. Simply not wanting to believe he was there to help doesn’t change the reality.
This was proven by the pictures of him cleaning graffiti, and testimony of him tending to minor injuries. I know you don’t want to believe it, but there are people out there who do want to help people.


The gun charges…. To be honest I expected that he would have been convicted of some of those. That was before I learned (through the trial) what the gun laws were.


It wasn’t legal for him to carry a pistol. The AR15 was the only option available to him. Weather that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not going to argue that. The point is, that’s what he had.


Maybe the idea of carrying such a weapon was a bit of a thrill. That doesn’t change the fact that it was necessary for him to arm himself if he was going to a place like that at that time.
This also doesn’t mean that he wanted to use it.


In all if the shootings, he was exercising restraint. He was trying to NOT shoot people. This is proven by the fact that the entire time he was trying to run away.

[fjh80]

Part 2

The first incident, he was running away. He even turned to show the gun to try and warn his attacker.
“You ain’t gunna do shit!” Is what his attacker had to say.
This is a 17 year old KID! A grown man is chasing him. The same man who threatened to kill him earlier that night. Even if you take that away, he was still chasing him, and his intentions were clear.
It was only when the first attacker closed in on him and lunged at him, that he fired his weapon. It was his ONLY option.
If you think he should have stood there and tried to use his fists, you’re crazy. He was a kid against a full grown, raging man. Put yourself in his shoes. If you don’t think he would have been anything but terrified, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It was simply a matter of survival.

[fjh80]

Part 3

After that he continued to run away. The entire time he was being chased and attacked. I’m not making this up. It’s clear on the video.
This kid was running for his life. Though you may think differently, it’s a matter of, ‘what else could he have possibly been thinking?’

And yes, he was being attacked. Regardless, his only plan was to run until he fell.
He was being kicked in the head, and even hit in the head with a skate board. What do you imagine he was thinking? He was literally under siege.
None of those people had a right to beat him, and he had every right to defend himself.
I have to add, in a situation like that, do you think you’d let people take your gun? That would be beyond foolish.

In this part of the videos you see him fire his weapon only after being attacked. You also see him hold his fire when people put up their hands and back off.
The third guy he shot…. He put his hands up and backed away, and Kyle held his fire. It wasn’t until the guy drew his gun on the kid that he was forced to fire.
You clearly see that he was no longer a threat, so Kyle left him alone. Those aren’t the actions of someone who out to kill people.

The bottom line is, if none of them had attacked or threatened him, none of them would have been harmed. No one has the right to chase anyone down and beat them.
I don’t condone the deaths of those men, but I understand that they (not Kyle Rittenhouse) forced a situation where a kid was forced to resort to the only means he had to defend himself.
If he had any other kind of gun, it would have been the same.

[fjh80]

Part 4

Your hypothetical, is the ONLY way this could be twisted into an issue of race. I don’t know why you would feel the need to do that.

IF you changed only his skin colour, the only thing that would have changed would have been YOUR reaction. Then, in your eyes it would have been self defence. And yes, you would have been right.

I’m not pretending that racism isn’t a serious issue, but the entire thing was on video.

[Exterminatore]

Kid did right morally and legally. People have a right to defend their lives and property and the lives and property of others.


People do not have the right to commit arson, rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, theft, vandalism, assault and battery, and take their angst out on people and their property who had nothing with George Floyd, Jacob Blake, the police or any of the other situations that served as the catalyst to burn down half the country in the summer of 2020. All of those illegal acts I stated occurred at one riot or another that summer.


Your mental gymnastics are nonsense. You’re just upset about your dead communist comrades who are probably in Hell on a rotisserie right now.


Thank God he was acquitted. I want to see more of what he did in the future. Let it be fresh in the memories of the communist scum who think they can do violence at will unopposed and terrorize citizens who did nothing to deserve or legally justify such animalistic behavior.

[Guanfei]

Another leftist bullshit. So, you're mad that your pedos and wife beater couldn't riot in peace?
You're mad that couldn't murder a kid and get away with it, like they did with their other crimes?
Well too fucking bad, Kyle was there for a reason, and if the 3 pieces of shit who attacked him stayed at home instead of burning stuff and attacking people, they would all be fine today.
Guess that's the US today. Rioters, pedos, criminals are your new heroes. And kyle disturbed their riot. How dared he stop those peaceful people from burning and looting store?

You see, I despise people like you at least as much than the 3 turds this kid shot. They were despicable human beings, and did what despicable human beings do. But to defend them and try to put the blame on the one who stopped them require a level of hypocrisy and rot I can't even comprehend.
Truth is, you're against him only because he dared disturb a BLM riot, a heresy for any American leftist. And also because he's white. Which is another thing American leftists can't stand.

[Anonymous]

Leaving everything else aside: In regards to your question why a 17 year old can get a rifle but not a semi auto handgun, often when a handgun is banned for certain ages or fully banned altogether but not a rifle this is partly because handguns can be concealed while rifles cannot. Even if you didn't openly carry the rifle you would have to carry it in a bag which anyone can tell is a gun bag so it is harder to hide a rifle in pulbic

Also, the rifle is also semi-automatic as fully automatic weapons are banned in the united states with the exception of guns (not the model type but the actual physical gun) that were manufactured before 1986 because this is when fully automatic weapons were banned.

You can buy one from before 1986 with a special permit (A federal ATF license which he definitely wouldn't be able to get) however these are extremely expensive. A semi auto ar-15 probably costs $1500 while a full auto pre-1986 would be minimum $40,000 because that is how much pre-1986 fully automatic rifles cost

[Anonymous]

“The judge pretty much didn't even hide the fact that he was all in for Rittenhouse, and he dropped the weapons charges”

The charges didn’t go to the jury because a jury is a finder of facts. Nothing about the gun charges where unknown, it was therefore solely a matter of law and not a matter of fact, and the law is clear that he was in legal possession. Nothing about that dismissal was inappropriate in the slightest.

“And he openly scolded the prosecutor, which journalists and legal experts said was even unprofessional.”

He scolded an unprofessional prosecutor infringing on the rights on the defendant and doing all manner of shady shit. It’s appropriate to scold the lawyer, anyone acting otherwise while the lawyer is infringing on the fifth amendment is the obvious tribal lunatic.

“By law a 17 year-old can possess a machine gun rifle, but not a semi-automatic handgun”

Ah, so in other words you know jack shit about guns and make bold claims about them and the law related to them despite being embarrassingly ignorant. There’s good reason for long guns to be legal. I know it’s not going to be obvious to you or others who are ignorant about guns, but this is your most embarrassing statement.

“someone who was out there that night just to stand by as a medic or protect businesses wouldn’t have carried a rifle with him”

Only if you’re a retard. Read the law you fool.

Also, isn’t it funny how the opposition doesn’t seem to mind that Gaige travelled farther than Kyle with an illegal firearm to provide medical help when he was not an EMT? But when Kyle does it for some reason it’s nonsense? That’s called bias.

“But instead Rittenhouse openly displayed a heavy weapon in the hopes that he would be provoked to use it.”

Again, read the law you fool.

[Opinion Owner]

“If he was a black teen who killed those three men with that rifle, all the weapons laws and technicalities would be completely ignored.”
If he was black there wouldn’t have even been any charges in the first place.
I do realise you’re a flaming racist, but do try to keep a lid on that shit and try not to make everything about race.

“And all the conservatives who support guns and love to say, “You don’t understand how the law works” would not be saying any of those things.”
There’s an objective measure of how it’s you that’s in the wrong though. You *literally* don’t know the law. So when they say that, they are right and you are wrong. There’s no wiggle room there.

“Black males with guns terrify conservatives and the legal system.”
Yet you can’t point to anything that supports that point, so again you just flap your lips without knows anything. You need to provide some objective measure of why you’re not an aggressively stupid retard, because the *facts* aren’t on your side here.

“women jurors most likely felt like they wouldn’t want to convict a kid and see him go to prison for life”
What part of unanimous do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Something that some of you need to gather some FACTS yourselves. But here's shortcut for you cupcakes...

Kyle's Grandma and his Dad with whom he lived part time lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois

The gas station where it all started and where Kyle stayed up until they started attacking him, is owned by his grandparents. They came on to his property to attack him

Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.

The Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
someone knocked Rittenhouse down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
Gaige Grosskreutz, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.

But if he was black and did exactly everything that Kyle has done.

[goaded]

I can see, based on the contradictory aspects of American laws across the country, that he could be acquitted according to the law. What's terrible is that, instead of the state and country trying to amend the law to be better, right-wing leaders in congress and the ex-president are saying how wonderful he is. He killed people, with a gun he took with him into a dangerous situation (when he'd already said he'd have shot looters, if he'd had his gun).

You just know that they're fans of the "she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been there/dressed like that" "argument", but when it comes to someone who's willing to kill?

Georgia repealed their citizen's arrest law in light of the murder of a black jogger; that's the way to go.

[ManOnFire]

Excellent response👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[goaded]

There's a reason the anon who wants people to believe that "The gas station where it all started and where Kyle stayed up until they started attacking him, is owned by his grandparents. They came on to his property to attack him" doesn't want responses. It's not true.

[Anonymous]

2 died
One was a child molester raped 4 kids. Parents of those 4 kids are probably thanking heaven and Kyle for killing him. Anyways , he threatened Kyle..


The other one was mentally Ill almost brutally killed his brother and sister. And drug abuser. This guy was hitting Kyle with skateboard almost hit his head..


The last one didn’t die but he was carrying 2-3 guns and chasing Kyle.. out of nowhere! That’s a lesson for him. And it was a pure self defense/ trust me you would have done the same thing.


All cases are different in this case it was self defense.


And yes I’m sure if the kid was black or Asian or whatever it was going to be the same ending. As self defense…

[BillyBalls]

Kyle Rittenhouse helped "thin the had" of sick individuals who wanted to cause harm to him.

The three morons he shot had no business being there. They were not there to "protest" anything. They were there to riot , destroy property and cause havoc.

The three deserved to be shot.

And remember. Never bring a skateboard to a gunfight.

[BillyBalls]

"Thin the herd"

[Sabretooth]

you've allowed that to cloud your judgment.

[spearheadbt]

The story reminds a bit of this one in some aspects: look wikipedia for Shooting_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori

The US has a seriously fucked up relationship with guns. You just have to "feel threatened" and can shoot at will. Even though you could have done ten thousand things to ensure it didn't come to this.

Coming up to a protest with a gun to "protect businesses and property" in itself was fucked up. That's the job of the police, who are supposed to be trained to deal with these situations (not that the police can always do that job super well...). Since when vigilante justice ever ends well? The mere fact of carrying a gun around people you are gonna have strong arguments with is super foolish and increases the risk of anything going wrong by 10000 times. He should have AT THE VERY LEAST got something for criminal negligence.

[Pterodon]

Fuck you. We don’t give a fuck what you Nazi krauts think. We kicked your ass twice

[spearheadbt]

@Pterodon I live in Germany but I'm not German. But that doesn't change anything. Anyway, LOL, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. Especially, you wouldn't have told me "fuck you". Clearly you are mad at me hahaha. So be it, I am happy to make you mad. Because it means that you are part of the problem as to why your country is a shithole. I'm sure China can kick your ass, does that mean that it's a better country? Hell no, China is worse than the US. It's not because someone can kick my ass that he's not a monumental idiot. That's the good ol' US macho jock posturing there. Looking all though but with nothing in the brains.

By the way, how often do shootings occur in Germany? (neo-nazis or terrorists, that's basically it, and it's not a whole lot) How often do you see people parading with their dicks? Sorry, I meant their guns. Americans strangely feel emasculated when they don't carry their gun around. I'm VERY happy to work in a place like Germany than the US. I'd never accept a job offer there, even if the pay is better. You can't even have a discussion with anyone who's not of your political inclination. If it wasn't for the system in place, you'd have yet another civil war. That's how evolved you guys are lol.

[Pterodon]

I don’t care what you think. Fuck off

[Pterodon]

We don’t want you here anyway

[spearheadbt]

@Pterodon XD

[Avicenna]

It was the prosecution that was totally "unprofessional", i. e., unethical.

And please stop with the tired old nonsense "a black teen would have been convicted"- there is no chance a black teen would have been put on trial in exactly the same circumstances because this was a clear case of self-defense and a malicious prosecution by leftist prosecutors that should never have occurred. No prosecutor would have risked DOJ civil rights charges and disbarment for charging a black teen under the same circumstances.

[ManOnFire]

"And please stop with the tired old nonsense "a black teen would have been convicted"- there is no chance a black teen would have been put on trial in exactly the same circumstances"
- Yes, he certainly would have been. I guess you don't remember the trial of Nathanial Brazill back in 2001, or John Lee Malvo. And it's Michigan, which is known for its racial issues.

[Avicenna]

What are you smoking? Brazill killed his teacher, and it had nothing to do with self-defense and
most definitely wasn't a case with similar circumstances

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Brazill

Malvo took part in a mass shooting spree over several weeks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Boyd_Malvo

Again, not comparable in any way to the Rittenhouse case. And I sure hope you agree both Malvo and Brazill deserve to be in prison right now. Neither Malvo nor Brazill committed their crimes in Michigan, by the way.

[ManOnFire]

Doesn't matter. They were still tried just like other weapons felons and no prosecutors in those cases faced any civil rights charges.

[Avicenna]

Yes, it does matter- don't be deliberately obtuse. The circumstances of neither of those cases was in any way comparable to the Rittenhouse case, e. g., neither was a case of self-defense.

But thanks for confirming that your stale cries of racism were without any foundation whatsoever.

[ShaTTeredMasterpeace]

This is legit. Fact of the matter is that he crossed state lines with a rifle and inserted himself into a "dangerous" situation. It's the people trying to paint him as a caring citizen that came over to help that I don't understand. And it's the people that keep talking about the backgrounds of the men killed that really annoy me. Because in any other case they would be against doing that. They showed that after the Jan. 6th incident.