Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

JimmyVik

I hadnt heard of this case. So I just watched hours worth of video and interviews on it today.

My take on it is.

Teenager with an overdose of bravado goes to "defend" poeples properties and fancies himself as a bit of a protector.

All goes well until some psycho chases him down and tries to get his gun. Only option is to shoot or be shot.

So now he has the mob after him. He is running down the road with a gun after shooting someone. Looks very bad and the mob is after him.

If he is caught by the mob at this point he is justified in thinking he will be lynched.

Some have a go heroes catch up to him first and try to disarm him. Him in a hightened state of "wtf is happening" sees that they have guns (several shots have been fired behind him. Maybe at him. He doesnt know) and shoots them. When they back off then he gets up and tries to give himself up.

Police dont know what is happening and ignore him.

Id say he is traumatized. Everyone there is probably traumatized. But it was a series of events that once started was going to play out.

"Someone has to pay" law takes over and now he is on trial.

MilkyToast

Nick Rekieta, a lawyer from Minnesota, is running a live stream of the trial, and has 4-10 other lawyers on there at any time with him, commenting on the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlOy99RWk0&ab_channel=RekietaLaw

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151243#Comment_118151243

It wasn't his neighbor - he lived 45 minutes away, crossed state lines and broke a police curfew to be there.

I don't get your harm argument outside of maybe the first guy. For all the others, this wannabe rambo had just shot an unarmed person - surely he is the biggest threat there and they are entitled to their own self defense.

No matter how much he wanted to be and played pretend, he wasn't in nor sufficiently trained to be in the police, an EMS, or a firefighter.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151456#Comment_118151456

My proof is that Rittenhouse's own defense didn't question that it was him. Are you claiming you know more than Rittenhouse's own defense team?

Ash.J.Williams

Kids get into all types of mischief but this fella was naive and walked into a riot with a gun , he should have stayed at home with his Lego and let the professionals look after things , he created the situation and must face the consequences, his parents need to revaluate themselves and all this was enabled by trump culture

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151147#Comment_118151147

An AR15 is not Tank Gun. you've been watching too many movies. AFAIK (open to correction). Its relatively small round. its actually smaller in caliber than many pistol rounds. But it is higher velocity.

In total he fired 8 rounds, 4 hit the first guy as he grabbed the gun, killing him. Then in the 2nd incident 1 min later when he was attacked while running away, 2 missed the first guy attacking him on the ground, 1 hit the next guy also attacking him the ground killing him. 1 wounded the next guy who pointed a gun in his face, while he was still on the ground.

While it all could have been avoided if hadn't been there (or the rioters being there chasing and attacking him). Its very hard to argue he lost control and went crazy.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151548#Comment_118151548

Indeed. A 17 year old civilian with no law enforcement training, affiliation or authorisation, goes to a place where there is some minor civil unrest, armed with a weapon and the intention of "defending" businesses against looting and rioting.

In America, this is perfectly rational and honourable behaviour.

In any other democracy, this is pure lunacy. Citizens cosplaying as defence forces with the intention of using lethal force against other citizens to defend property, is not normal. Or reasonable. Or defensible.

Apparently its is the duty of every American to pretend to be a police officer. Or a soldier. Or a doctor.

What's funny is the people banging on about due process and Rittenhouse's right to a fair trial, but apparently it was OK that he killed one of the guys because he was a paedo. Due process for some, but not for others, it seems.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151226#Comment_118151226

Technically its not a machine gun.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151501#Comment_118151501

The judge is very much questionable - from the jury selection process, to not allowing the term victim be used while allowing negative terms for those who died to be allowed, to disallowing the evidence that Rittenhouse's tears were phony and he isn't remorseful, to not allow iPad to be zoomed in to show clearly the crime, to the judge's Trump ringtone...

I have no problem with equal representation under law, there are endless number of cases where minorities wouldn't get the treatment that Rittenhouse has received from this judge. It is a two tier system

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151635#Comment_118151635

Assault rifle to some ,

Semi automatic ar15 to others ,

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151610#Comment_118151610

I don't get your harm argument outside of maybe the first guy. For all the others, this wannabe rambo had just shot an unarmed person - surely he is the biggest threat there and they are entitled to their own self defense.

No. It is only possible to claim self defense if you are set upon or pursued, believe your life to be in imminent danger, and have no other reasonable means of escape. Huber, Grosskreutz, the guy that fly-kicked Rittenhouse in the chest and the multiple other people who were there had pursued Rittenhouse down the street toward where the police were. If he were a direct threat to them, their responsibility was to keep their distance.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151619#Comment_118151619

Why would they make any comment on a video that isn't admissible in court. It has no relevance to the case.

Gatling

Has anyone seen what medical qualifications he supposedly has , been he went to put out fires give first aid it was claimed he said he was an EMT ,he Said in one of the clips he treated someone's shoulder ,but didn't specify what treatment he gave to unidentified persons shoulder

Burty330

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151619#Comment_118151619

It wasnt presened to them thus there was nothing to defend. Are you really this moronic?

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151626#Comment_118151626

Paedo guy had a fair trial and was convicted. He wasn't shot for being a paedo of course, it's because he was attacking someone.

Pawwed Rig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151562#Comment_118151562

Still doesn't meant you can walk around there brandishing a gun as it is illegal. It is not illegal in Merica so there is a false equivalence

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151665#Comment_118151665

Seems like he was a lifeguard at some point. I assume therefore that he has some form of First Aid Training. He doesn't seem to be EMT however.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151548#Comment_118151548

Under normal circumstances the police would be able to police.

But just like in the LA riots in 1992, the police were stretched and completely overwhelmed. Hence the billions of dollars of destruction that happened over those weeks with the looting and vandalism. He clearly wanted to try and help keep the place safe. There were many, many more like him who were armed to the teeth at that time, but only for defensive reasons. They thankfully were not put in a position to use their guns, but without them acting as a deterrent, who knows how many more lives and livelihoods would have been destroyed by the BLM rioters?

Ush1

Some of the people against him are flying dangerously close to victim blaming.

"Why was she dressed like that?"

"Why did she have condoms in her bag?"

"Why was she in that dodgy area?"

Interesting parallels.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151649#Comment_118151649

Tank Cannon...

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151622#Comment_118151622

You're ignoring all of the context. The "professionals" had all but stood down and allowed chaos free reign. If they were doing their jobs, Kyle likely wouldn't have been there.

Kermit.de.frog

I have been watching some of this and it all seems fair game to me.

It is up to the prosecution to argue their case at the end of the day.

If they do a good job, context won't matter, he'll be found guilty.

If they don't he will go free.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151651#Comment_118151651

You'd have a point if someone killed Rittenhouse but no one did, they tried to disarm him. Rittenhouse had just shot someone multiple times and was running around with a gun - there is much more evidence that he was going to kill another person than the protesters were going to kill Rittenhouse.

By your logic someone could go into a school or shop, open fire and then legally keep firing at anyone who tried to disarm them that wasn't the police.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151736#Comment_118151736

Did they have a right to try and disarm him?

Genuine question.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151648#Comment_118151648

The judge didn't allow "victim" because it's a loaded term that suggests that a crime or unjust act was perpetrated against them. Since that is the matter at hand in the ongoing trial, it has the potential to prejudice the jury. If he allowed "victim" then that would also open the door for the defense to refer to Rittenhouse as the "victim" of the attacks perpetrated against him, and I imagine that you might take issue with that, no?

The is allowing the terms such as "looter" or "rioter" only for people who have been shown to have been looting or rioting. There's no contradiction there.

There is no evidence that "Rittenhouse's tears were phony". The jury saw him on the stand, and they can judge the sincerity of his distress, as is their role. Whether Rittenhouse has smiled for a photo between the night in question and the present day doesn't speak to his level of remorse.

The judge stated very clearly that he would allow the prosecution to admit the iPad-zoomed images, as long as they can find an expert witness to testify that those images are an accurate and unaltered representation after image interpolation. Which they probably won't be able to do, since zooming "fills in" pixels. You can see the sort of problems this raises in this article: https://www.theverge.com/21298762/face-depixelizer-ai-machine-learning-tool-pulse-stylegan-obama-bias

Schroeder is Winsconsin's longest-serving circuit judge. I've seen no evidence that he has ever been suspected of treating minorities unjustly in his courtroom.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151717#Comment_118151717

his only contribution was a **** up

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151736#Comment_118151736

Can you show us this evidence that he was going to kill someone? Your own opinions don't count by the way, actual evidence, and not just "he had a gun". For the supposedly smart, you seem to be severely lacking when it comes to understanding legal standards. Many, many people seem to think their own views should trump laws.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151751#Comment_118151751

Same right he had to be fair, that’s why militias are idiotic, just adds to the chaos

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151665#Comment_118151665

Yes, this was covered in testimony.

He is not an EMT. He was a firefighting cadet and a lifeguard and received first aid training in both those roles. There was some info on who and what he treated that night but I forget.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151768#Comment_118151768

Who did he try and disarm? Where are you getting that from?