Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

bewareofthedog

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

Was not surprised to see that the Governor and Kenosha mayor were Democrats. There's footage of police thanking random civilians protecting property because of how overrun they were.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151695#Comment_118151695

But if it was white people protesting and rioting would we have the same wannabe navy seals with rifles and body armour protecting businesses ,

Even the storming of the capital didn't have the wannabes arriving enmass to protect the capital

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151836#Comment_118151836

Well we certainly saw a white woman get fatally shot at the capitol.

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151836#Comment_118151836

What are you on about? There was many white people there, hence the dead and wounded white people. You're not making one bit of sense.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151846#Comment_118151846

By a cop

MilkyToast

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

I don't mean to be patronising, but it is impossible to defend oneself if one is dead.

In any case, they didn't try to disarm him. They chased him down while he was retreating with his gun lowered, and when he fell they kicked him in the head, hit him with a skateboard and pulled a handgun on him. I believe there is a "defence of others" provision under the law that might cover someone attacking or killing an active shooter (which is very well what they may have believed themselves to be doing), but I don't think that a retreating person with a lowered weapon heading toward a police presence police would meet that criteria.

conorhal

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

I put it to you that the rioters, that came from far further afield then Rittenhouse did and got shot for their trouble, are the ones that 'created the situation'.

I'd say the politicians that ordered the police to stand down and leave communities defenceless as rioters ran riot are the ones that 'created the situation'.

I'd say decent people that were abandoned to roaming bands of looters are the ones that 'dealt with a situation they shouldn't have had to'.

The pathetic argument of ‘why didn’t these people just bow to the mob’ is both cowardly and shameful.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151820#Comment_118151820

I was trying to say both parties had the same right to do whatever to each other as they were all civilians

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151857#Comment_118151857

But the majority protesting and rioting were black ,yes the dump **** went to a prodomintly black riot and came away only shoot 3 white people ...

Again in simple terms do people actually believe these so called armed groups would have turned out armed to the teeth if white people were rioting in a black community

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151652#Comment_118151652

They have been going on a PR drive for Rittenhouse outside of the court and at no point have I seen them dispute that it was him.

Flinty997

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

Except he wasn't running around. He ran away from the rioters, in a straight line towards to the police line and ultimately passed through it.

He wasn't pointing his gun at anyone and when people backed off (like the last guy who was wounded) he also backed off.

I mean I would question the sanity of being there, but he didn't run around like a madman like you're implying.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151878#Comment_118151878

So your assessment is that a racist white kid went to a place where there were predominantly black rioters to instigate violence with black people, and managed to only kill or injure three white men who attacked him first... because he's dumb?

Is that right?

Not gonna lie, that seems implausible.

davetherave

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

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

939.48(1)

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

It stops being self defence when the immediate threat is over. If an individual is actively running away from you, and you are pursuing them, then you are not acting in self-defence.

Rittenhouse was, as video evidence shows, attempting to flee, escape, evade, and/or prevent the attack on him by running away from the first individual who was then fired upon when he made an attempt to seize Rittenhouse's firearm.

When he tripped and fell, he had lost all reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailants. The video evidence shows that he didn't start firing his weapon blindly and without care. He fires shots at individuals who were attempting to attack him. Those people are attempting to attack him, because they just saw him shoot one of their own.

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151878#Comment_118151878

I'm literally looking at protest photos on Google now, and I don't see any with a black majority. It's the opposite in most instances actually. How is someone expected to debate with you, when you can't even establish the supposed fact that's the whole premise for your argument? You're just dealing in ridiculous hypotheticals, because you have no real world example that supports your view.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151873#Comment_118151873

I put it to you …that you are not much of reader

the situation gobshite created was the situation where 3 people were shot , not the entire riots

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151760#Comment_118151760

So victim isn't ever used in court?

In the run up to the case Rittenhouse was going out in a bar wearing a t-shirt that said 'Free as F*ck' - that to me is not the sign of someone who is as remorseful as he was putting on a show to be. The jury should be allowed to see that evidence.

What does his tenure have to do with anything - it is an elected office in an ~80% white area where he runs unopposed?

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151890#Comment_118151890

Ah well if YOU haven't seen them dispute it, all the way over in Ireland, then it must definitely have been him.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151764#Comment_118151764

He had literally killed an unarmed man moments earlier - what more evidence do you need?

Somehow many Rittenhouse supporters want us to believe that he rightfully feared for his life from those who had not killed anyone, yet the crowd should not have been fearful of him despite the fact he'd just repeatedly shot an unarmed man (then shot a few more).

Ash.J.Williams

Is this thread over run with Americans today or wha 😂

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151926#Comment_118151926

You'll have to explain how he created the situation.

What was he doing that caused the first person to attack him at the first shooting.

What was he doing that caused 3 other people to attack him at the second shooting.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151958#Comment_118151958

He created the situation by **** being there

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151836#Comment_118151836

If it was white people rioting the Police would be in the middle of it rioting with them - as seen last January

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151872#Comment_118151872

How are they supposed to know he was going towards the police so that is irrelevant as using the crimes that the victims had committed in the past to justify Rittenhouse's actions.

No one killed Rittenhouse and there is no evidence that his life was in danger. The guy with the handgun had the opportunity to raise his gun and shoot Rittenhouse but he didn't, he moved in and grabbed his gun (like others tried to grab his gun).

The idea an active shooter can't be legally disarmed by the public once they are backing away at any point in time is absolutely ludicrous.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151878#Comment_118151878

So what you're saying even though all those involved were white, in a predominately white town, in a predominantly white area of the town.

This is all about the black community.

You're going have to join those imaginary dots for us.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151899#Comment_118151899

He ran away from the unarmed guy he just shot repeatedly - no one there could know he was running towards the police, nor that he wasn't some complete right wing nutjob that was going to continue to shoot unarmed people. If he was a 17 year old black kid after shooting someone during a Proud Boy riot I doubt he'd be getting the same benefit of the doubt

I wouldn't have run towards him to try to stop him but you hear countless stories of 'heroes' who try to disarm shooters during nearly every mass shooting in the US

Shao Kahn

The thing that I find hilarious about this whole incident, is how much it shows up these antifa / blm types for the amateur hour thugs that most folks know they really are.

People are making fun of this 17 year old for being a kid. (he is a kid)

These guys chasing him, many of them are grown men waving guns around, and clearly don't even know how to use them. Or fully comprehend the potential consequences of pointing a gun in someone's face. Or the monumentally stupid one, who was beating him over the head with skateboard - while he had an AR15 strapped around his chest! (Darwin award contender!)

That's exactly how I imagine most of these idiots. What, did he get side tracked on his way to the local skate park, and decided to do a little spot of rioting and looting instead? Most of these guys don't have a brain cell between them.

The kid, while under massive stress being chased by an angry mob, managed to stay calm enough to put up a very respectable defense. He took out two guys and badly injured another. And they never even managed to put a single round in him. Took it's toll on him mentally afterwards, as you could see in court. But still very impressive composure in the moment from a kid.

The fake hard man thugs on the other hand? They performed exactly how you would expect - completely useless. (which is presumably why they're out roaming the streets late at night, with nothing better to do with their lives)

Very easy for cowards to act tough in large crowds of like-minded idiots.

B.A._Baracus

Live court video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyppmuFxwKk

Showing the videos of him shooting at the moment.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151915#Comment_118151915

How is the threat over when the killer is carrying a military style weapon? In what other mass shooting situation would that be deemed the case?

He was moving away from the crime scene but was still walking the streets with the weapon.

Again, your argument relies on painting his victims as being the bad guys who were out to kill Rittenhouse while ignoring the fact that Rittenhouse had just killed a man. Somehow your 'threat' are those who have not killed or caused great bodily harm to anyone.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151962#Comment_118151962

I agree with you ash.

Stupid child enabled by stupid system shoots people dead with firearm he was stupidly allowed to carry in public into a fuckin riot.

Why is anyone from Ireland defending this twat or this demonstrably stupid situation that allows it.

Guns kill people that is their primary purpose.

Guns do not have a pacifying effect on other people around and increase the risk of violence what the **** is there not to get here. (Especially when you allow children to take them into riots)

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118151935#Comment_118151935

Victim is usually used in court when it is clear that someone has been the victim of a crime. What's at issue in this case is whether a crime was committed. If the shootings are ruled self defense, then there was no crime for anyone to be a legal victim of. If they're ruled as murder or manslaughter, then the people who were shot are victims.

It's different to a case where there was a clearcut murder and the issue is "was this the person who perpetrated the murder". In that case, you have a crime, ergo a victim.

As far as his "Free as F*ck" t-shirt goes, that doesn't really speak to his level of remorse. And anyway, remember that in this case the contention is that he believes that he is innocent, and was forced to shoot in self defense. In that situation, a person wouldn't be expected to be "remorseful" in the way you would expect a murderer to be, since they don't believe themselves to be guilty of any wrongdoing—even though they may feel traumatised or devastated about having had to take a life/lives to save their own. It would be expected that someone who was held in jail for three months who believes themselves to be innocent by reason of self defence would be happy to be released from jail. In any case, I don't think it's relevant to whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self defense on the night of the incidents, which is the issue at hand.

The judge's tenure has to do with the length of time he's been practicing without any apparent complaint that he has unjustly or unfairly treated minorities. Which you brought up as part of your "judge is bad" argument.