I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
The law is not that different.
Intent, direct or indirect is still the same be you in USA or Ireland.
Trying to defend ones own property is fine, going miles to 'protect property' owned by random strangers when it is not your job, your business, or your duty is not ok, it is out looking for trouble.
Open carry at protests wasn't illegal at the time of this shooting.
It has been only made illegal by some states after the Capital Riots.
Seems crazy and obvious to us. But the rules in the States are very different. We see gun and we see intent. But thats not how it works in the US.
Everything from the trial is available. Why make up lies? He shot a convicted paedophile that had attacked him and had lunged to try and take his gun from him (evidence given by freelance reporter who was a few yards away). Second man killed had already hit him over the head with a skateboard and was coming back for shot two. Third guy LITERALLY stated in the witness box that Rittenhouse only opened fire after he had pointed his loaded gun at him. There was no claim that it jammed.
He'd fit right in to be fair.
To me its all crazy. But this is the US and laws are different. What is considered normal is different.
Its not an assault weapon. Its rate of fire is no different to an automatic pistol. It is a military styled weapon but its not illegal. Carrying it is not illegal and open carry is seen as less dangerous than concealed carry and smaller weapons. This is why the cops seems unconcerned with people carrying such weapons. Again seems crazy to us, but thats how it is.
It wasn't a peaceful protest, it was a riot. You'd have to question why people want to attend a riot. What sparked this shooting was this guy putting out fires or being mistaken for someone putting out fires. He's on video saying what his intent was.
For me he was playing a role. But trying to defend property is also not illegal. Even it we think its nuts. But his actions on camera, are not of someone intent to shoot someone or cause trouble. Even if you think its all for show and he was there to use the gun. The obligation is too prove intent with an absence of all doubt. That is going to be hard to do, from the camera evidence, which shows restraint while being physically attacked and physical evidence of power burns on some of those involved.
Oh spare me your fake ass morals. Anyone can say anything on the Internet.
I recon if there was a riot on, you'd be barricading your door while crapping your pants. But hey... this is the Internet. You can come off as John rambo to other users.
'can fulfill his ambition of becoming a member of the police force and continue to defend society against criminals.'
I sincerely hope not.
He put himself there ,
The same person who challenged him went up to a number of armed people and guess what he wasn't shot by any of them,
He chose to shoot he's a little coward nothing more , look how cool and calm he was walking away though the police line ,no injuries no torn clothing , just him casually walking away after shooting 3 people ,he was more than prepared to kill for nothing more than kicks
Cynical and uncaring without pay?
Is that not worse again, you don't believe in solidarity and you won't even help yourself.
Say the court indulged this post, the moment guns were pointed at him, nevermind the shot being fired he had complete justification to shoot back.
Anything prior to that then became irrelevant.
What we can all agree on is that the 2 who died were awful people and the world is a better place for it.
You can think Rittenhouse still needs jail.
Not about money. You don't go sticking your f**king nose in to places where it doesn't belong.
Some people want to stand for something and do what they think is right. You see it all the time with student protests, climate demonstrations etc and people travel often long distances to take part. That this guy travelled to take part in something he believed in is not that unusual. That he had a gun with him is also not unusual (in an American context*). The only question is whether he felt his life was in danger. If he did then they are legal shootings under self defence laws. I cannot see him doing time on this one and am surprised it even went to trial**.
*you are talking about a country where people 'audit' the police by walking around busy districts armed to the teeth to see what reaction they get. All quite legally bizarrely enough. Merica
**I would suspect he is on trial for political reasons which doesn't seem to be unusual in the good aul USA.
Aren't you a real cynical type, unless there is a greasy coin in it, you'll never help others?
Funny how you so adamantly claim the evidence backs your view, while ignoring plenty of other evidence that doesnt align with your desired outcome.
Rosenbaum, the guy released from a mental institution was recorded on the night repeatedly asserting he was going to kill Rittenhouse. Drone footage shows Rittenhouse fleeing and the others chasing after him, some of whom were armed. If he was so intent on killing why didnt he stand his ground rather than flee? It was only once he was accosted on the ground that he shot back.
"He chose to go there armed" so did loads of people - so did Gaige Grosskreutz who chose to go there armed and also chose to chase after Rittenhouse and pull a gun on him - if you think he is the victim in this situation you are genuinely delusional. How you can think a guy charging offensively with a handgun is the real victim simply because he happened to get shot first, rather than the person being charged - I have no idea.
I ask you this - if Rittenhouse was shot and murdered by Grosskreutz, would you still say Rittenhouse was in the wrong? Because so far the only consistency to your logic seems to be that if someone gets shot they are defacto a victim. Not a very logical stance really as criminals get shots in retribution for their actions all the time, but failing that I cannot see how you could come to the decision you do.
Ah. The whole thing is messy. One of those trials that's going to divide people. That said, he was a complete idiot for being there in the first place. Protecting some car dealership? Not like its own by a family member or what not. Not like he was getting paid to be there. Moron.
He is from very close by, word went out for people to help protect small businesses and homes from looters and arsonists.
Which they were successful in.
Guess he was there as part of working class solidarity.
Apt username.
I agree :-)
He protected society from the illegal actions of the mobs and when they turned on him he defended himself with zero collateral damage. Only those committing crimes got hurt or injured.
He said he wanted to shoot shoplifters in a video that the judge won't allowed to be played ,he was not a medic or EMT as he Claimed he went looking for trouble and shot and killed 2 and badly injured another ,
He didn't have to shoot them,he wasn't going to be killed ,he shot a man who was only released from a mental health service ,who only threw a plastic bag at him, he chose to go there armed ,he chose to get involved , choose to pull the trigger on three people including one where the gun Jammed and he shot again despite the third person having their hands raised .
He went to kill ,he was the only who killed that day , despite thousands of protesters and hundreds of armed gun nuts only he decided to shoot
Yep, we need this guy to become a cop ASAP.
Didnt look fake to me.
Looked like a kid suffering from a mental breakdown / PTSD of some sort and someone who before he is legally able to sit and have a beer goes to bed at night having some bad nightmares about what happened. Rightly or wrongly he killed people and thats forever going to weigh on his mind. It looks like the prosecution are up against it.
The entire thing is a pity, people are dead and he who has lost any last amount of innocence of youth because of what happened and at that age should courting girls, having fun instead of being involved in all this.
The greatest country in the world
Does that make him guilty of murder ?
Again what matters is what happened , not the way he got there, or his political beliefs etc - and what happened was clearly self defence like it or not.
Video backs it up and so does police evidence
This 100%.
He was one of several people wearing firearms in full display in public. It's allowed in the state where this happened. Seems crazy to us but not unusual there.
He and the others where defending property from looters and rioters, this is allowed in the state where this happened.
Many businesses and property where damaged by the rioters. Large sections of Americans won't stand by and just allow criminal acts take place unchecked, they will rightly defend their neighbors and neighborhood from illegal criminal acts.
Some here have stated "he crossed the boarder" from where he lived trying to put a negative context on that action. While it's true he crossed the boarder you forgot to mention he lived in a boarder area with his mother, his father and other family members lived in the town where the rioters where causing criminal damage.
Video footage shows he only ever defended himself after being set upon and attacted.
The behavior of prosecution team in this case has been disgusting, they have ignored court orders and I fully expect a mistrial to be declared. This will deny that young man the chance of being declared not guilty by a jury of his peers educated with the full facts of the case and having seen all the evidence in court.
Hopefully the young man who's gone through such a terrible ordeal for merely defending his neighbors, his area and himself can fulfill his ambition of becoming a member of the police force and continue to defend society against criminals.
How do you know they were insured?
Wasn't his job nor was he asked to do so, nor was there any onus on him to become security for those businesses.
two wrongs don't make a right.
Businesses are insured , it wasn’t his job to be there
30 minutes is a "great distance" now?? Jesus, I should charge work for the VAST distance I've to travel.
If course, but just because they were wrong doesn't negate his wrong actions.
intent on his part was clear. There were more than one person wrong in this incident, including those adults not even present who facilitated him
He was there protecting innocent peoples businesses, vehicles, providing EMT help to both innocents and scumbags. There weren't enough cops and the national guard/state police hadn't been called in. He lived fairly local, only 30 mins away.
If he actually just set out to just kill people he could have killed hundreds with that weapon in a very short space of time
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
