Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty?

[weegiemum]

How? He shot 2 people dead in front of witnesses, but apparently it was "self defence"?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-kenosha-shooting?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@NekoShiro

If I go to a protest in England and carry a glass bottle around and someone else has a glass bottle and threatens to kill me with it so I smash the bottle over their head killing them instantly, proceed to be chased by people who are angry that I just killed someone Infront of them one hits me with a skateboard and tries to get the weapon off of me. It's perfectly okay for me to use the broken bottle to stab him to death and another person but he lives all in the name of self defense? Would I be cleared of murder in the UK?

It's irrelevant though isn't it, laws are different. If people are upset about the verdict then their energy should be on pushing changes in the law.

If I go to a protest in England

They weren't in England though, were they?

I actually think if you remove yourself from what you previously read on Twitter and objectively review the evidence on this case you'll understand the verdict to be the right one. I'm a leftie and was totally bought into Rittenhouse being a murderer who went there to kill people. Some falsehoods:

"Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an assault rifle, travelling some way to join a counter protest."
No, he worked in Kenosha and his dad lived there. The gun was given to him by a friend to defend himself. I think walking around with a rifle is insane but a number of the protesters were also armed. Apparently he had provided first aid that day and a business owner had asked him to protect his business that night (there's eyewitness testimony to back this up)

Rittenhouse wasn't the aggressor. He was confronted and chased by an erratic, aggressive, mentally ill man who was only there to join a riot. A man who was actively racist himself and who also grabbed for his gun. Rittenhouse at the time was there to put out a fire. A shot was fired by a third man so Rittenhouse fired at the man chasing him on the assumption he was being shot at.

He then left the scene and was pursued by multiple men. He was beaten with a skateboard and a gun pointed at his head. It was chaotic. They believed they were taking down an active shooter, Rittenhouse, believed his life was at risk, so he shot out again.

I'm not saying he's some kind of hero. He might be a racist, is likely right wing. He's certainly a bit of a fucking idiot, but if you look at the details of the case impartially, the self defence argument is strong.

@flashbac

You can agree with a verdict without having to get your violins out for the accused in this case. I feel a lot more sorry for the dead people and their families to be honest.

You feel sympathy for Joshua Roseberg? A man who'd served time for raping 5 boys aged 9 - 11. Who had open charges of domestic violence against him. Who threatened to kill Kyle Rittenhouse, chased him and tried to wrestle the gun from him for a purpose we don't know. I feel no sympathy fir him whatsoever.

We had this discussion last night and we disagree about it.

But we do agree that our starting point for understanding is nothing like that of American law, society etc.

He was being a vigilante. He had a weapon. His reaction, what is legal there, bears no resemblance to anything that is acceptable here.

So, basically, I remain gobsmacked at it all. Everyone and everything about it.

@madisonbridges

Yes. I do feel more sympathy for those that are dead because some idiot thought it was a good idea to get a gun and act like some 'big man'

"Joseph Rosenbaum — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, Rosenbaum was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha.

His confrontation hours later with Kyle Rittenhouse, a heavily armed teenager who had answered the call for “patriots,” kicked off a chain of violence — the deadliest of the summer — that left Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, dead. A third victim, Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, lost a chunk of his right biceps but survived."

I think the fact he was heading towards the police is pretty critical. The people who attacked him could just have stood back and let the police take care of it, he wasn't running away from the police or pointing his gun at anyone, but towards the police. So what justifies (legally speaking or in terms of a sense of threat) drop kicking him, smacking him in the skull with the sharp edge of a board or shouting 'cranium him' if he's handing himself into the police?

From what I have seen the state he was in has carrying a gun underage classified as a misdemeanor which may well be bonkers but they can only use the law they have.

The guy shot in the arm was indeed carrying a weapon illegally and presumably as a felon that is a chargeable offense. Presuming he hasn't been charged? I'm also not convinced that smacking someone around the head full force with a skateboard because someone said he had shot someone is legal.

It's definitely tragic if a load more people of all ethnicities go on to have their livelihoods smashed, looted and burned to the ground because of some white on white violence being misportrayed by the media. Why do the media want to see more civil unrest?

Rittenhouse was on trial for crime, not for ideology. White supremacy would only be relevant if he had been hunting people down or shooting randomly at the protesters/rioters. The case hinged on self-defence so Rittenhouse's ideological beliefs became irrelevant. Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter and gun-enthusiast, so probably not my kind of person, but there is no definitive evidence that he was a white supremacist. We can't make different laws for people we don't like.

@CallMeNutribullet

I actually think if you remove yourself from what you previously read on Twitter and objectively review the evidence on this case you'll understand the verdict to be the right one. I'm a leftie and was totally bought into Rittenhouse being a murderer who went there to kill people. Some falsehoods:

"Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an assault rifle, travelling some way to join a counter protest."
No, he worked in Kenosha and his dad lived there. The gun was given to him by a friend to defend himself. I think walking around with a rifle is insane but a number of the protesters were also armed. Apparently he had provided first aid that day and a business owner had asked him to protect his business that night (there's eyewitness testimony to back this up)

Rittenhouse wasn't the aggressor. He was confronted and chased by an erratic, aggressive, mentally ill man who was only there to join a riot. A man who was actively racist himself and who also grabbed for his gun. Rittenhouse at the time was there to put out a fire. A shot was fired by a third man so Rittenhouse fired at the man chasing him on the assumption he was being shot at.

He then left the scene and was pursued by multiple men. He was beaten with a skateboard and a gun pointed at his head. It was chaotic. They believed they were taking down an active shooter, Rittenhouse, believed his life was at risk, so he shot out again.

I'm not saying he's some kind of hero. He might be a racist, is likely right wing. He's certainly a bit of a fucking idiot, but if you look at the details of the case impartially, the self defence argument is strong.

I completely agree with this and it was the right verdict.

KR may be or may not be a racist, right-wing, white supremacist but everyone still deserves a fair trial even if you don't agree with them.

And I also agree that a black man who did the same things that KR did would most likely have been treated differently.

sexual conduct with children is a very sanitised way to say that he raped 5 very young boys. Interesting when you reflect on your choice of language around Rittenhouse, who was an actual child athe time.
Rosenbaum was mentally ill that's true. He was also, perhaps as a result very aggressive, dangerous and the only one there actually screaming the N word

Well, I read the Bari Weiss article and thought yes it sounded like self defence but I then read the Intercept article in the following link that gave another perspective with a convincing argument the self defence claim doesn’t hold up. theintercept.com/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-jury-decide-men-tried-stop-heroes-villains/

I think it's reasonable to feel conflicted about this case. The verdict was the right one legally, but I'm uncomfortable (well, more than that really) with someone travelling to an area of unrest, arming themself, and becoming embroiled in the chaos of that night, particularly at the age of 17. Legally though, it was self defence and that's why he's a free man.

It's interesting that people bring up the criminal backgrounds of his victims (not that the judge would have allowed me to call them victims). To me, that's not relevant here - if someone is a paedophile or a domestic abuser, that is immaterial. It's their actions on that night and the actions of the accused that matter, nothing else. That's unpalatable, but it is fair.

We can't make different laws for people we don't like.

I think some people would genuinely rather we did.

He was beaten with a skateboard and a gun pointed at his head

Some of the video stills show the guy with the gun whose arm was shot by Rittenhouse was not pointing his gun at Rittenhouse up to and at the time Rittenhouse shot him. The prosecutor points out it was only once the guy was shot in the arm holding the gun, not pointing at KR’s head, his destroyed arm automatically dropped making the gun briefly point at KR.

The relevance of the background maybe is that these were people running at, attacking, pointing guns at their shooter and whom he perceived as being a threat to his life - one was severely mentally disturbed and the others criminals - do you think they would have given off, 'just trying to stop you for a chat' vibes?

@HooverIsAlwaysBroken

I think it is frightening with the big difference between the actual facts (as presented in the trial) and the media’s presentation of this. Many things said by the press and by president Biden was either a lie (crossed country lines with a gun, fired 60 rounds) or not proven (Biden and others claiming white supremacist).

I think it is wrong for the media to lie and do trial by media” before the jury reached a verdict. And I think it is appalling that a sitting president declares himself unhappy and angry with the verdict of the legal system.

Totally agree with this. I've finally watched the footage and agree it was self-defence in a chaotic situation. Based on everything else I've seen you'd think he was a hateful loony, shooting at innocent men for no reason. Terrible statement from Biden.

@Zotter I thought the one who was injured said he was only fired at once he himself pointed his gun?

@mathanxiety
"The case came to trial after a Grand Jury indicted Rittenhouse. That is to say, a jury of ordinary people exactly like the jury which found him not guilty found there was enough cause to try him for all of the charges which were brought."
..............
The grand jury is not a jury. Its not its function to listen to evidence from all sides.
I'm not American and I've never lived in America but even I know evidence to the Grand Jury is not unbiased or even-handed. The GJ doesn't listen to the defendant's (if charged) evidence. They just listen to the prosecution outline their evidence and we know that in court the prosecution summonsed witnesses that should have given evidence to support their case but actually they made the case for the defence. Thats how weak the prosecution was. So who knows what the the GJ was told.

Do you think the jury was unaware what weight was on their shoulders? When you've even got presidents ready to align themselves against you in criticism. Of course they're going to go over all the evidence carefully. They don't want to be accused of not doing due diligence and starting riots. This was not a majority verdict. It was unanimous on all charges.

From footage taken of that day, e.g. at the time when Rosenbaum was threatening to kill people and using racist slurs, there were black men at the protest (and white men too) openly carrying rifles. AFAIK, they were neither arrested nor shot because, crazily, carrying legally held guns isn't against Wisconsin law. The whole situation seems unbelievable to a British person, but it's another emotive falsehood to say that a black man would have been arrested for carrying a gun when that didn't happen. I mean, there have been people holding guns and protesting outside the courthouse during the trial. It's completely nuts.

[quote lawnotorder]@Zotter I thought the one who was injured said he was only fired at once he himself pointed his gun? [/quote]
He did, but under oath. When he's not under oath he paints it very differently it seems. Does anyone know if he has been/will be charged for illegally carrying a weapon?

The quote facility didn't work on my above post. It was in response to a previous poster saying that a black man at the protest would have been arrested and possibly shot for 'prowling around with a gun.'

Zotter I can't really agree wtih that article you posted. The jury had to decide if Rittenhouse himself was in reasonable fear of his life. That makes whether or not the crowd of people who went after him were heroes or villians completely irrelevant. It's also an oddly polarising and unhelpful way to describe the situation.

Gaige Grosskreutz, the man shot and injured, confirmed under oath that Rittenhouse shot him after he pointed his own gun at him.

@flashbac

You can agree with a verdict without having to get your violins out for the accused in this case. I feel a lot more sorry for the dead people and their families to be honest.

Very much agree

What has really shocked me about all this is how the media are able to print such lies to suit their view.