America's Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse

ManOnFire
Americas Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse

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
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.

Americas Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse

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.

Americas Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse

#kylerittenhouse

America's Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouse
13
85
Add Opinion
13Girl Opinion
85Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Girls

  • 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.
    LikeDisagree 22 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • ManOnFire

      Excellent point.

    • 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

    • Show All
  • 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
    LikeDisagree 11 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • BillyBalls

      The legal facts lead to the correct verdict.

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

    • 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.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

1185
  • 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
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 8 People
    • 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

    • @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

    • master of his own fate***

  • anylolone
    Law wise he did nothing wrong, actually law wise he did something good, which is self defense.

    The judge didn't mistrial with prejudice, considering the infractions of the DA, withholding evidence, lying to the judge and on the stand (the DA can't lie), inquiring witnesses on their right to a lawyer, inquiring witnesses on their 5th, badgering witnesses, etc.

    It's so bad that several DAs just resigned, and little binger plus sour kraut will suffer administrative procedures.
    LikeDisagree 7 People
    • ManOnFire

      Did you read the whole Take? If Kyle was a black kid none of that stuff about the law and him doing nothing wrong would matter to people. They would still want him locked up.

    • anylolone

      And you literally pulled that from your ass without any knowledge of cases.
      Roderick Scott is a good example, and on new york.
      www.ocalapost.com/.../

  • 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.
    LikeDisagree 21 People
  • 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.
    Like 1 Person
  • supercutebutt
    Your mouth is so wet, Mr. Former President!
    Your mouth is so wet, Mr. Former President!
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 6 People
    • ManOnFire

      🤣🤣🤣👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

    • slisk250

      Yep, the trumpers luv the POS

  • tatianamay
    He put himself in a dangerous spot. His mistake. He did not have to kill people.

    But why is everyone bringing race into this? I don't think race has got anything to do with this.
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 8 People
    • ManOnFire

      Because if Kyle was black he would be convicted and we know it. Nobody would be defending him having a gun.

    • tatianamay

      Well, yeah, but why did the jury take 3 days to make a decision after careful consideration?

      Im not defending that asshole, because believe me, I know that he is a freaking murderer, but the laws allow self defence. I don't know why he had a gun though. It gies against the laws to have a gun.

  • 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.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • Shawn411
    Regardless of him being aquited what is a 18 year old doing with a assault riffle yes he was attacked but for the rest of his life he will remember that lives are gone when he should of been home playing VIDEO GAMES 🎮 yet there's nothing he can do to help.
    LikeDisagree 3 People
    • ManOnFire

      Exactly.

    • Shawn411

      He still should of been playing his video games...

    • Shawn411

      Thank you God bless...

    • Show All
  • 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.
    Disagree 1 Person
    • 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.

  • notwoke
    80% of interracial murders are black perps and white victims 89% of murdered blacks are murdered by other blacks. the men who attacked Kyle and were killed were white. Please give the fucking victimology a rest, the race card is overdrawn.
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • ^ I agree 100%

    • ManOnFire

      @notwoke White men commit more mass shootings than black men, and possess major firearms like rifles much more.

    • @ManOnFire I think you need to learn how statistics actually work.

    • Show All
  • Paul09
    In Canada, he would have been in jail a long time ago. And out gun laws are strict. A nut like that would not get a gun license. You are only allowed to take it put to the gun range. Not walk around shooting it. Oh gun laws need to change in the usa
    Like 2 People
    • ManOnFire

      THANK you!

    • Jouth

      Naw. He was attacked, physical contact. He then opened fire in defense. Nothing can change this fact.

      He did go to a riot armed to the teeth like he was a fucking Navy Seal. I admit and agree that he was a complete fucking idiot who acted with recklessness and put people's lives in danger.

      But when it comes to the question of why those people were shot. Who's fault it was, it seems to be almost entirely the fault of the people who decided to chase and then attack him. The moment these dudes decided to chase a guy with a gun, they entered a new level of stupid, not seen anywhere else that night, and this entrance was rewarded by the cold crack of 5.56 echoing into the night, extinguishing their lives. It fucking sucks. It's sad. It was unfortunate, but I still don't believe self defense is wrong or legally undefendable.

    • Paul09

      @Jouth Still, civilans should walk around with guns in public, ever.

    • Show All
  • 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.
    Like 3 People
    • Not only do medics and corpsmen carry pistols in the military but chaplains do as well if they desire.

  • RasmusAiken
    So you're saying you didn't watch the trial without saying you didn't watch the trial.
    Anyone unhappy with the verdict should work tirelessly to change the law.
    Like 1 Person
    • ManOnFire

      I did watch it. It was a travesty.

    • Was a travesty it wasted tax payer dollars having a corrupt prosecutor put an innocent kid on trial.

  • 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:America's Common Case of Kyle Rittenhouselastly 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!
    Like 1 Person
    • t-8900

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

  • haooy
    So if Kyle would have killed those people with a pistol, the situation being the same, would it had made you look at him a different way. I think not.

    A 17 year old shouldn't have a gun, okay. But a 17 year old should have a right to defend himself. No one would disagree with that.
    Like 1 Person
    • ManOnFire

      If he had a pistol hidden on him and didn't use it unless he really, really had to, yes I might think differently. But he wanted to be seen with a rifle. He wanted that on display.

    • haooy

      I mean if someone is displaying something that can be deadly wouldn't it already warn people to not mess with you. Unlike a pistol which would be a total surprise.

      "Until he really really had to."- don't you think in situation like these we can't objectively define where the line is.

    • @ManOnFire you're not smart enough to guess at kyle's motivations

  • John_Doesnt
    It doesn't matter what your opinion on the verdict is, he should not be paraded around like a hero. The fact Fox News and the NRA are calling him a "hero" shows you how low their standards are for a hero.
    He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    Like 3 People
    • Sabretooth

      and the NRA still thinks of him as a crazed idiot... oh shit! I ain't supposed to say that! oh... piss off! nothing you could you could do to threaten me, now.

    • @Sabretooth where does the NRA say that? They've been parading his picture around like he's the virgin mary.

    • Show All
  • hahahmm
    "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. " -- But you're wrong because he DID take medical supplies and he only attacked people who attacked him first. Reality isn't about what you hope it is. It's about facts.
    Like 2 People
  • Nick473
    There is no clear evidence that he wanted it to end with shots fired. Give up your fantasys and fake spin
    LikeDisagree 8 People
    • ManOnFire

      The clear evidence is the fact that he showed up to a riot with a machine gun rifle. He wanted to be provoked to use it.

    • Nick473

      Thats your spin. You dont think people want to protect there community from these thugs burning down businesses? What a joke. And a rifle isn't a machine gun

    • Nick473

      Thats not evidence of intention

    • Show All
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Show More (76)
Loading...