If you think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. Can you explain logically why?

[globetrotter22]

I have yet to hear a well informed opinion on why Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty of murder.

If you do believe that can you from a legal perspective explain to me why?

Updates

+1 y

I have gotten some good responses to this.

One problem many people have nowadays is if they are presented with hard evidenced that challenges their pre conceived notions it not only threatens their judgement but their (political) identity as well.

It’s still possible to be a Democrat, support BLM and still think Rittenhouse is NOT guilty. But I think most of the people who still say he IS guilty (even after seeing the evidence he’s not) have a much deeper problem going on.

Updates

+1 y

That is why I have been so intrigued by the Rittenhouse case. It’s not the incident itself that has me wound up but people’s emotional judgment.

As a conservative I can make observations that Trump was wrong about assuming there was (mass) voter fraud. I can say the Capitol riots are gross. I can say the ahmud Arberry shooters are guilty. That doesn’t transform me into a Democrat. But why is it so many leftists can’t have the same outlook on incidents?

[NaultD]

The question is about the legal argument of "Aggravation." As an example take the Byron David Smith killings. Basically this guy was baiting his home for robbery and plan to murder people who enter. Ultimately he was charged with murder. Then back in 2018 Florida "stand your ground" case of Michael Drejka was convicted of manslaughter for 20 years.

Going back to rittenhouse, he involved himself in a dangerous situation. Once involved escalates as the "aggravating" agent in the situation. So if he is the one that broke the camel's back for deadly force, self defense is not applicable. That's the overall argument.

[globetrotter22]

That is one of the better responses to this I’ve seen to this. Thanks.

I still think rittenhouse was justified to use lethal force to protect himself. All three men who attacked him did so meaning grave bodily harm.

Also if he just randomly shot these rioters that would be a different story. As much as I hate those people you still just can’t go out kill them unless they are directly attacking you (and they were doing that to rittenhouse).

[NaultD]

I still get that vibe rittenhouse was looking to hurt people and stalling until he could defend it. Which is similar to Michael Drejka case but the difference is a convienance store compared to an active protest.

The way he pretended to be a medic, noticable distance from home, guarding someone else's property. It does not pass the sniff test for me. It sounds like you're setting up to create a self defense case and that at the very least should not be defensible. Now the question is how you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[globetrotter22]

“ I still get that vibe rittenhouse was looking to hurt people ”

So you get the “vibe” however there is zero evidence that Rittenhouse ever said or posted anything on social media claiming he wanted to be an active shooter. The majority of other active shooters usually gave off warning signs about this.

He was enrolled in an academy to be a medic and he wanted to be a cop. He was idealistic and stupid to head to Kenosha to put himself in thick of it. But you are doing a lot of reaching with that “vibe” comment. A lot. The prosecutor was so desperate in the trial that he asked Rittenhouse if he ever played violent video games. That’s asinine considering probably 90% of teenagers and young adult men have.

However I’m seeing lots of people on the left with this “vibe” (not sure if you are a Democrat but just saying). You can’t nor shouldn’t try to convict people with “vibe” assumptions. That’s mob rule.

Just a FYI if some 17 year kid showed up to the Capitol Hill riots (I thought that riot was disgusting by the way) with an AR15 and everything went down the exact same way as it did for Rittenhouse I would still consider him not guilty.

[NaultD]

I said vibe and had compared it to Michael Drejka case to ground it in legal standing. "Creating a self defense case before you are in danger should not be defensible." That should not be a crazy concept.

I'm calling out rittenhouse as pretending to be this, out of his way to be there, where people he dosen't like. As a way to kill people. Let's strap an ar 15 across the chest and cut through the middle and hope to catch someone lacking.

[grega239]

he's a white trump supporter... Oh you want a logical answer... i got nothing

[globetrotter22]

Perfect. Lmao.

[Anonymous]

he's not but definitely gun charges.

[globetrotter22]

I felt the same way. The judge actually dismissed the gun charges on a technicality. The Wisconsin law s supposed to apply to minors who are carrying short barreled rifles (which is gang related.)

However I wish he was found guilty on the gun charge and let off on everything else. If he gets acquitted on everything than that will only give more ammo (no pun intended) to the leftist mass media to spin more bs.

[Opinion Owner]

Agreed. He had an ilegal gun but he was right to use it in self defence

[globetrotter22]

Yep and all three rioters he encountered were also breaking the law. I am so sick of leftists saying those guys were somehow “heroic”. They were all oxygen wasting POS’s

[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.

[globetrotter22]

I’m actually on your side on this one man. Great response above. Not sure what’s up the cupcakes comment.

[Opinion Owner]

It's for the ones that think self defense is murder, it's the equivalent of calling them beta cucks.

[globetrotter22]

Just when I thought the left couldn’t get more Down syndrome they once again proved the world wrong. It’s absolutely insane.

I think some of them actually know Rittenhouse is not guilty but they are too cowardly and brainwashed to admit it. Like it would somehow turn them into a trump supporter or some bullshit.

[Opinion Owner]

Right!!

[Opinion Owner]

Some of them are blaming the parade tragedy on the Rittenhouse verdict, saying all of those people dead are karma.. Wtf man.

[globetrotter22]

The irony of all this is these people end up self destructing from their own stupid policies.

[Opinion Owner]

Agreed.

[God_of_Thunder]

I don't personally care.

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or jury member. I have no connection to the case, nor is it my job to determine his guilt or innocence.

If the prosecution proves their case, and the jury votes to convict, then he's guilty. If the prosecution fails to prove their case, and the jury votes to acquit, then he's innocent.

I just wish it was over, because I'm sick to death of hearing about it.

[globetrotter22]

I wish it was over too. But honest the mental gymnastics insanity of seeing from people who think he’s guilty is scary. If the roles were completely reversed (leftist activist showed up to the Capitol Hill riots and shit attackers in self defense) I wouldn’t changed my opinion on the case.

[God_of_Thunder]

I haven't followed the case, nor do I care to.

I remember the news coverage of the initial incident, in which he appeared to be guilty, and that's the extent of my knowledge regarding it.

Obviously there is more to it, but like I said: the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if he was as guilty as he initially seemed to be, then their job should have been easy.

Since it obviously isn't, then there are facts that I'm not aware of, so I can't render an opinion. Again, though, that's not my job, so if they can't prove his guilt, he should go free. Simple as that. 🤷‍♂️

[Anonymous]

Can people start covering the Aubury case.. nobody should give 2 fucks about Kyle.

The niggas is innocent or followed the law.


They think because he crossed state lines and and is white and shot people at a black protest riot he depraved to be jailed.
Doesn't matter if the other 3 white people attacked humor the Kyle was running away.

[globetrotter22]

The ahmud Arberry case should definitely being getting a lot more media attention. That was a plain as day fucked up. But I expect a guilty murder with that one. No gray area.

[globetrotter22]

Guilty verdict. It’s only legal to do a citizens arrest if someone is actively engaged in a crime. Those guys should of just left alone. They thought he was a burglar. But how can you rob a place wearing shorts and tshirt? He was also in the middle of the streets. Even if he did go that house that was being burglarized (more than once) you can't arrest someone for that. It was under construction.

[Opinion Owner]

I hope so man. That was brutal. They boxed him in with their cars

[globetrotter22]

Out of all the racial issue killings last year that one pissed me of the most. Some of the others had unseen complications beyond video footage. But that one was gross. I’m a conservative white male I hope the judge throws the book at those knuckleheads.

[normalice]

Seems like the main question is was fact that he went to a protest armed enough evidence, in itself, that he was looking for violence, considering no one else felt the need to shoot each other. Beyond that there is legal nuance.

Personally I have no idea. It's just sad that the case is being used as a proxy for "is it okay for white supremacists to murder people they disagree with?" Because even if that's what happened, that isn't what's being argued in court.

[globetrotter22]

Well I fail to see how the rioters (several armed with guns) are somehow “more noble” vs. someone who went there to protect businesses. Especially since all three men he shot had criminal records. Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist, Parks (guy who beat rittenhouse with skateboard) went to prison for beating up his mom and the guy who got his arm shot Guage was illegally carrying a handgun admittedly pointed at rittenhouse”s head prior to getting shot.

All three of these men chased, threatened and tried to harm rittenhouse. Air tight evidence proved that as plain as day.

So the question is WHY defending yourself against those POS’s somehow “white supremacy”. How is protecting business from being burned down “white supremacy”. Why is that rioters are considered “noble”.

[normalice]

The "rioters" didn't get scared and murder anyone. That's more noble. And bringing up their criminal history ignores the fact that they were already punished for it to the full extent of the law. Being criminally charged and serving your sentence doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to murder you. Or at least, if it does, that suggests a problem with our penal system failing to rehabilitate people (lol).

The question of how it has anything to do with white supremacy has a really old answer. The first question is "is it okay to use violence to protect property?" And an answer of "yes" predates civilization. Indeed, the answer of "a hard no" comes exclusively with any claims to being civilized. Kings and kingdoms were an intermediary step between the caves and democracy. White supremacists (or any supremacists) simply haven't evolved past the desire to be ruled by their own tribe, wanting a return to kingdoms - some even wanting to go back to the caves. The point is white supremacists still want it to be okay to murder people to protect property. And that's is effectively how this case is being interpreted. "Is it okay to murder people to protect property?" White supremacists (or people who want a king/cave in general) want the answer to be yes. Everyone else wants the answer to be no.

[globetrotter22]

Do you really believe Rittenhouse is a white supremacist? If you think he is for supporting law enforcement please move out of this country. I’ll help you pack and hell I’ll even buy you a one way ticket.

Also I call bullshit on calling the 3 men he shot as “more noble”. All three of those oxygen wasting knuckleheads went to Kenosha to cause trouble and RIOT. That was no “peaceful protest” that was a fucking riot. I don’t care where you stand on the political spectrum (left or right). If you riot you are a piece of shit. Period.

Rittenhouse went there to protect businesses and administer medical aide. In all three incidents he was attacked by men intending to do him grave bodily harm. If he didn’t shoot back he would likely be in a coma or dead.

Any nice “kingdom and white supremacist” wishy washy analogy above. From what I’ve seen the left has no clear goal but to bring destruction to our country and eventually establish communism (which has done so much for human rights cough).

I got news for you. The vast majority of Americans have had it with this radical leftist bullshit. Republicans are going to crush the midterms and most likely take the Oval Office back. Most people aren’t deluded as you are to believe “the system” is built on white supremacy. Bullshit.

[normalice]

If i thought rittenhouse was a white supremacist it would be because of the photos of him hanging out with white supremacists flashing white power signs. Nothing to do with law enforcement.

Also, weird these rioters didn't kill anyone before Kyle showed up. Does everyone on the right never wonder how that's possible considering everything they've been told about the protests? Is it one of those things where they are willing to accept a belief with no proof? How is it possible 96% of the protests were peaceful? Not "the protests were peaceful 96% of the time" but 96% of the protests were peaceful 100% of the time. And of the violence that occured, much of it has been attributed to white supremacist instigators trying to discredit BLM.

[globetrotter22]

Source about the photos?

[normalice]

Sure. Here's an article on the judge explaining why he wouldn't admit it as evidence (spoiler: in part because he didn't want the trial to become political - which is weird for a judge to admit to thinking white supremacy is a valid "political stance." Though, he also added because the picture was taken after the fact it doesn't influence his state of mind in the moment, which seems like forced logic since its still a reflection on his state of mind and any reflection on his state of mind is what everyone was supposed to be going through - indeed his Oscar worthy testimony occured "after the fact," too):
www.chicagotribune.com/.../...pagczdesi-story.html

[Wester1967]

He shot a living human being with a damn gun. Twice. And they both died. That's murder kid. Republicans never practice accountability. They only offload, blame shift and psychologically project. It's always somebody else's fault. They sell this BS as "personal responsibility", the exact opposite of what it is. The party of babified endless entitled whiners. It's textbook Narcissist Personality Disorder. Republicans are the professional NPD party.

[globetrotter22]

I asked for a logical and legal response on why this was “murder” vs. justifiable homicide vía self defense.

You are a grown ass 54 year old man and yet you did the exact opposite of what I requested. I think one of us is a “kid” and it’s not me.

[Anonymous]

He has to face some charges because you can't go out publicly with a gun and kill two people. Do I think it was intentional, NO. Am I happy a pedo is dead , YES. Would I encourage anyone to do what he did? NO.

[zerofuks]

Many States have open carry or some kind of carry so legally yes you can have a gun publicly. And yes in self defense you can kill people that's the whole argument of the case your whole argument is he should be found guilty for having a gun and defending himself

[globetrotter22]

Remember the several of the rioters were carrying guns too. They went there to cause trouble and burn shit. Rittenhouse went there to protect businesses.

[BrosephBrostar]

"you can't go out publicly with a gun and kill two people". Why? Simply seeing someone with an AR, unlike what Littlebinger wants you to believe, is not grounds to attack someone. You don't have to lay down and submit yourself to a mob just because a pedo sees you and is mad you're too old for him.

[Opinion Owner]

@zerofuks that's not my argument. The first guy he killed was self defense ( I've seen the video) but the second guy he killed should face charges for killing. It doesn't have to be first degree , maybe manslaughter.

[BrosephBrostar]

Again, why? Huber's mindset is irrelevant for a self-defense case. Kyle is running away, clearing trying to avoid the confrontation, and Jump Kick Man and Huber both tried to lay hands on him. They initiated with lethal force, both of them, and Kyle responded in a justified way.

[Opinion Owner]

@BrosephBrostar okay quick question.
Why did they approach Kyle and tried to stop him?

[zerofuks]

It's really clear you just don't know what you're talking about and just want people to be in trouble for defending themselves.

[Opinion Owner]

@zerofuks yet you cannot answer a simple question. The irony. Lmao

[zerofuks]

You literally never ask a question

[globetrotter22]

Well why they tried to provoke rittenhouse is beyond me. Would you try to “stop” someone who is just carrying a rifle and isn’t an active shooter?

The first guy Rosenbaum was a crazy, homeless convicted pedophile. Do you expect rational judgment from someone like that? He tried to take rittenhouse’s rifle. What they hell was Kyle supposed to do?

[BrosephBrostar]

I know you want me to say that Huber and Jump Kick Man thought that they were stopping an active shooter, but as I had already stated, their mindset is totally, utterly, and completely irrelevant in Kyle's case for self-defense.

But hey, I think it's worth getting into the reasons why they deserved to get shot anyway. For one thing, they're still part of the same mob that was burning down Kenosha that night, and, more importantly, Kyle was attempting to flee towards the police line. You don't get to assault someone with a deadly weapon if you're part of a violent mob and the person is retreating, even if you think that they just killed someone, because you don't know if maybe your comrade actually deserved it.

[Jhister]

Murder, yes by definition. The killing of a person by another person. He killed 2 people. Not in question.

Better question would be should he be found legally liable/guilty. No he shouldn't.

[Diodoro]

It was homicide. Murder entails malice or forethought which needs to be determined. Maybe forethought to shoot, can't say forethought to kill.

[globetrotter22]

@Jhister so i guess if someone tries to seriously harm or kill you then just let them do it? If you fight back then you might be guilty of homicide?

Did you spend any time looking hard at the evidence that came out of this?

[Diodoro]

He's not making a case either way. He was just saying killing is killing legally speaking but whether or not he should be held guilty in the eyes of the law for a crime is a separate question.

Only thing he was off on was calling it murder. It was homicide (killing another person), the question is should he be found guilty of murder or liable for his killing of those people? He says no and I agree.

He killed. But it wasn't murder

[globetrotter22]

@Diodoro I misunderstood what he originally said. Thanks for the clarification.

So would you call this justifiable homicide?

[Diodoro]

I believe it is, but there's enough information to debate if he's liable for something. Perhaps a lesser crime

[BarryLiverstone]

Hope the news stops showing that trial

[globetrotter22]

Amén to that.

[SaoirseS]

You and me both!

[Aphrodite801]

Racist clown.

[Morgador]

Because he's not!