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.
It doesn't matter what would happen in Ireland because this didn't happen in Ireland.
Whether he had the legal right to carry a gun is a matter at hand in the case and will be decided by the jury.
He will only be legally punished for things he's found guilty of.
Maybe it was self defence but he went there with a gun he had no right to carry why was he there at all,.? what would happen to a parent in Ireland who gave a rifle to a 17 year old boy and helped them to go to protest or an area where there was a minority left wing group protesting
He had no legal right to carry a rifle
I hope he does not get away without some punishment
Of course he is a hero to some right wing extremists
Did you miss the Yellow Vest riots of 2019, or the race riots of 2005..?
What about teachers being beheaded, and all that jazz?
Just because its not the exact same, doesn't mean its not similar... and no I do not think France is a failed state
Pot Kettle...
His father and half his family lived in Kenosha. Something that was absent from the media until this court case.
Rittenhouse choosing to go into the situation was a supremely stupid thing to do.
Sure was.
In many mass shootings civilians try to disarm shooters because the police aren't there - according to many here it is illegal to do this once the shooter is retreating carrying their gun
No it's not "illegal". But if the shooter is leaving the scene, where they have shot one attacker, with their gun lowered and they are attacked by a citizen wanting to stop them (as could very well be the case here, and is probably why Grosskreutz has not been charged with anything despite being illegally in possession of a firearm and wielding it) then it is open to a self defense claim.
Self defense is a state of mind decision. The judge or jury (depending on the type of trial) are tasked with deciding what the state of mind of the shooter was at the time that they shot, and whether there were any grounds for them to feel that their life was in immediate danger. In this situation, where Rittenhouse was walking away with his gun lowered after shooting in (alleged) self defense, and given that he did not shoot anyone before being attacked by them, it seems reasonable that self defense is on the table. If he'd indiscriminately shot a bunch of people, or even shot one person aggressively and not in self defense, then it would be exceedingly difficult to mount a self defense defence because proving that a person had switched from a mindset where they had murderous intent to one where they were not muderous in a matter of minutes would be almost impossible.
No, the cultural context is a reason why his actions were not out of the ordinary in this situation.
The School Crime scene where John Rambo was, it's not a normal country.
Do keep up.
What crime scene?
Arent you against vigilantes and the like chasing people rather than living it to the police?
You're some man for mind reading via the mediium of video.
In many mass shootings civilians try to disarm shooters because the police aren't there - according to many here it is illegal to do this once the shooter is retreating carrying their gun 🙄
No one actively tries to attack him straight after the first shooting - everyone ran away or ran to help his victim. Rittenhouse had time to make a phone call. They only chased him after he tried to run away from the crime scene and didn't know what he'd do next.
I don't think any of us would be in a similar situation where we dress up in a provocative manner (filling out rambo fantasies), drive 45 minutes into an area under police curfew, and then walk around by ourselves with a rifle we weren't legally allowed to carry.
But the police didn't show up, and putting his gun down in the middle of a riot would have be a supremely stupid thing to do.
You have once again basically given the definition of an excuse
"attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."
The judge was inappropriate - the cultural context is simply an excuse for his actions.
Foxtrol isn't sure in what country it happened.
Do you think it's logical to try to render first aid to someone/people you just shot in the middle a riot with loads of other people actively trying to attack you at the same time? Really?
In hindsight he probably should have called 911 first but he was a kid in a stressful situation. Who knows how any of us would react in a similar situation.
You cant attack someone and then claim to be the victim when it doesn't work out for you
Again - I am not making excuses. I am explaining the situation in the cultural context of where the ongoing trial is. If I heard it in an Irish courtroom it would be shocking. In a US one, I wouldn't even blink.
That they are dead is just a fortunate outcome, that would be the case whether Rittenhouse shot them in self defense or cold blood.
The videos show clear self defense.
I'm just looking for the upside for everyone here, regardless of what they think of the legality of it.
They could have been people whose life had worth and he still would have been legally justified to fire.
So basically let just blame the victims
He was at no stage an active shooter, as per the FBI definition.
He called his friend to tell him he killed someone ,not bad for someone who was in fear for his life and being attacked by a baying mob
His claim of wanting to be a medic might be somewhat believable if he'd tried to lift a finger to save the lives of the men he killed - he didn't even think about that. He called his friend after the first shooting instead of 911
It is hypothetical but the child rapist and the kidnapper decided to leave him no choice either way.
What ever shi7 talk he may have had before hand, the 2 abusers pushed it so he had no choice.
They were shot because they attacked a person in a manner Which he feared for his life and with so much phone footage made it clear, that they deserved it for what they were, didn't matter, no offense.
What happened is what is.
But... Is fantasy and hyperbole.
He saw the protests and riots on Fox, bought into the spin and thought he was free to join in with his rifle. At best he was an armed vigilante. IMO he thought he would enjoy himself by attending.
His defense is a judgment on the people he killed.
He'd no business being there to police and protect businesses, as he claimed.
It didn't because in no situation have I ever heard of an active shooter no longer be one because they start to retreat while holding their gun.
If the police had shown up right as Rittenhouse had killed his first victim (or the others) he would have been treated as an active shooter until he put his gun down and surrendered.
You conveniently left out the word 'whites' which was in your initial post, which had already been pointed out to you as bulls41t, seeing as a massive portion of antifa and BLM protesters are actually white.
I watched his full testimony yesterday, Rittenhouse stated he barely used the weapon and disagreed with the testimony of his friend that he practiced shooting the gun at a longer range.
You believe his experience is irrelevant so how would finding the clip change your mind on anything?
When did that happen?
Is someone who shoots up a school no longer an 'active shooter' as soon as they start retreating while holding their gun (or 'rifle' for the pedants out there)?
Im just asking you to back your assertion up with proof. Fairly standard stuff.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
