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

This was absolutely the correct verdict. Anyone who actually watched the live stream of the trial would be in no doubt. The conduct of the prosecution was shocking and the defence could have been stronger but the right decision was reached

I've just read the coverage in the Independent, they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The lies I've read about this case are staggering.

I was shocked to watch the footage and see it was self defence.
The media made out he was on a rampage.

I think it's difficult for those of us in the UK to really grasp the situation in the US sometimes, and in cases like this especially. Locally to me in London when there was rioting and looting the local road of Turkish shop owners stayed in their shops with iron bars and bats all night with their men because they were their businesses that were theirs and like fuck were they going to sit there idly and watch them get smashed up, looted, burned for absolutely no reason, they'd done nothing wrong. They protected themselves and each other as they're a community. Young men went to help their parents' friends and there was strength in numbers.
If guns were legal and the other side were likely to have guns they would have brought them and there probably would have been some very very bad shit going down.
That was the point of the defence from what I saw, that a young man went out in the spirit of community as he didn't want to see it destroyed. So to question why he went out with a gun in the first place shows a potential lack of insight into the differences between the societies. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just think that's a point that stands out to me.

I just can't understand why anybody is allowed to just go out with guns.

I understand and agree with your sentiment but Wisconsin has open carry laws and if KR had not been armed he would have been dead.

Is this the footage you are talking about:

www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qpv694/as_the_kyle_rittenhouse_trial_has_been_gaining/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Spectre8

I agree with every word of your post. It was a political trial. I will be following the fall out for the prosecution because they have been caught out bending the rules, and that is putting it mildly, I do hope they have to answer for themselves.

I saw someone else describe this as a persecution not a prosecution and it looked very much that way to me. It should never have even gone to court.

It’s obscene. A 17 year old crosses state lines with an assault rifle intending to ‘patrol’ as part of a self-described militia. How can it be self defence when he actively sought out confrontation and shot three people, killing two?

I think what is strange, from my UK perspective, is that the presence of guns messes up self defence law. In the UK you are only allowed to use reasonable force which is proportionate to the threat. So the first guy who threw a bag at Kyle was unarmed so it would be clearly disproportionate to shoot him. But then Kyle claimed the guy went for his gun, and had to kill him to prevent him taking the gun away! So the mere possession of a firearm then justifies you in using lethal force against unarmed people just in case they threaten to take your gun. And of course the second amendment means that walking around waving a gun cannot be perceived as a threat or provocation. I'm a bit worried about what this means for the Ahmaud Arbery trial, to be honest, because the shooters in that case can claim they were protecting their neighbourhood (which is legal), chasing a perceived threat (also legal, see the Trayvon Martin case) and then responding with lethal force when Arbery grabbed the shotgun muzzle (self defence). But intuitively it seems bonkers that these randoms can just run up to a black guy jogging on the street and shoot him dead. I think, to be honest, the law probably needs to stamp down harder on people taking guns to places and acting as self appointed vigilantes.

@Carboncheque

It’s obscene. A 17 year old crosses state lines with an assault rifle intending to ‘patrol’ as part of a self-described militia. How can it be self defence when he actively sought out confrontation and shot three people, killing two?

There's the misinformation we are talking about. Rittenhouse was extremely misguided but there are several inaccuracies in your post.

Also, one of the men he shot had travelled even further and was also in possession of a gun.

It’s obscene. A 17 year old crosses state lines with an assault rifle

No he didn’t. This was disproved and that’s why he wasn’t charged with it. This was one of the biggest inaccuracies of the whole thing and it was reported relentlessly even after it had been discredited. He was given the rifle after he got there - there was testimony to that effect. Also his father lives in Kenosha and I believe KR has a part time job there.

A 17 year old crosses state lines with an assault rifle intending to ‘patrol’ as part of a self-described militia.

He didn't the gun was always in Kenosha. An AR15 is not an assault rifle, AR stands for Armilite, it's a long barrel semi automatic. The prosecution and then the media described them as militia, there is no evidence that Kyle and the people he was with described themselves that way. They couldn't access Kyle's phone and never would have done if he hadn't given them the code. They found absolutely nothing to support the claim he was either a white supremacist or part of a militia which is why the contents of his phone were never referred to, by the prosecution, during the trial. His home address is 1 mile from the Wisconsin state line, Kenosha is just under 20 miles. His father, grandparents, an aunt and his best friend live in Kenosha, he also worked in Kenosha and had spent the afternoon clearing up graffiti there. He had body armour (from being in the police cadets) which he gave to someone else that night because he was there to provide first aid. The gun was no doubt to protect himself as the owner of a furniture store had been beaten unconscious by the mob two nights previously.

How can it be self defence when he actively sought out confrontation and shot three people, killing two?

He was chased after putting out a flaming dumpster which was being pushed towards a gas station. The injuries on the first man shot confirm that he had grabbed hold of the gun and was attempting to take it from Kyle. JR (the first man shot) had been released from a mental health hospital earlier that day, his girlfriend (who had a restraining order against him for DV) confirmed he had not been taking his medication for at least a week and video footage of him earlier in the night has him behaving very erratically and claiming he had just been released from prison and wasn't afraid to go back there.

Do we genuinely believe there would have been the same result, or that he would have been treated in the way he was that night, were he black and roaming the streets with a weapon?

He chose to go into a violent situation with a gun. He shot three people. Two died. If he had stayed away, two people would still be alive.

This isn't a shock. This is the system working as designed. Of course he was going to be found not guilty. A black kid in the same position who thought guns were 'cool' and shot people in the name of 'self-defence' would right now be either facing life or the death penalty.

Clearly I'm not very good at reading the room

I really don't think that is the issue. Anyone who has relied on MSM to keep them informed about this case would have thought exactly the same as you.

’he was there to provide first aid’

He killed two people and injured a third.

Foot soldiers of white supremacy are not punished by the system, they're actively rewarded for their participation within it.

Now compare this to Tamir Rice.

@VladmirsPoutine

Foot soldiers of white supremacy are not punished by the system, they're actively rewarded for their participation within it.

This is complete nonsense.

This is the problem with guns being ok imo.

He killed two people and injured a third.

Did you watch the trial?

VladmirsPoutine

I think you've forgotten what kicked off the riots in Kenosha.

There's a cultural difference here. Compare Tony Martin who illegally armed himself and shot people burgling his house. He was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter and his self-defence claim was rejected. The logic being that your can only use reasonable force. I guess that in the US you don't have to restrict yourself in that way.

If you’re black, you’d better have a good defence for jogging in broad daylight in a white neighbourhood. If you’re white, go armed into a violent situation and you get the benefit of the doubt.

The police are really outdoing themselves when they have cadets shooting and killing members of the public.

I also think it was the correct verdict. Some of my younger relatives were discussing the trial on social media recently and they wanted to see KR jailed, mainly because they thought he seemed like an a**le. It was horrible to listen to such vitriol about a teenager.

TomPinch

Tony Martin was convicted because he shot a 16 year old, who was running away, in the back, the boys body was found on the boundary of his property if I recall correctly. Kyle Rittenhouse was actually being attacked when he fired his gun.