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

AR15 is not an assault rifle, AR stands for Armilite, it's a long barrel semi automatic

Guns like this aren't for shooting rabbits. They're for shooting people or they are convenient for this purpose. That's why they were banned in NZ, a country with very high rates of gun ownership, after the Christchurch massacres (the terrorist who shot the worshippers at the mosque used an AR).

They are guns with magazines that fire high-calibre bullets without the need to reload. You just pull the trigger. No bolt action etc, just bang bang bang.

Speaking as someone whose fired one (on a shooting range) they're extremely dangerous weapons.

@mathanxiety

Really glad I'm not in Kenosha tonight.

In my opinion, if you go to a place where there are protests, carrying a weapon, you are looking for trouble, and if you do get into trouble, you should be asked what you thought you'd end up doing with the gun.

A further question would be whether property is worth a life.

Also, who asked you to go there and bring your gun?

This is what I'm thinking. It's like seeing a fight and crossing the street to join in, only instead of fists, these guys had guns.

@FOJN

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.

He also shot them in his house, the point being that they were proximate to him, and he could reasonably have felt threatened.

The point is that firing on them wasn't proportionate.

Speaking as someone whose fired one (on a shooting range) they're extremely dangerous weapons.

No one is disputing that but they are legal for open carry in Wisconsin.

FOJN Thank you for explaining the facts correctly. I am looking forward to the legacy media getting sued for all the false information they continue to spread.

The facts were known 14 months ago, but for the Independent journalists who filmed everything that happened the prosecution would have got away with manipulating the everything. I do hope that both prosecutors are investigated for misconduct. As well as the MSNBC reporter who was arrested trying to follow the jurors home.

This isn't a right or left issue, justice should not be allowed to be prejudiced by the MSM.

By the way Kyle is half Hispanic.

A further question would be whether property is worth a life.

In some states I think it is though isn't?

And to be clear, I'm not questioning the verdict. I am making the point that 'self-defence' will mean one thing in the US and another on other countries, both in the legal test and in the contexts it has to be applied.

A cowboy standoff isn't something that would be likely in the UK (or here) and if it did happen, I suspect the defendant would not be able to argue self-defence.

@StormyTeacups

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?

Well a black teenager who shot several of his classmates actually in school was let out on bail the day after the event back in October. He was home for his birthday party that evening, while his victims - one of them 15 and seriously injured remained in hospital.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-school-shooting-timothy-george-simpkins-b1934885.html?amp

Brilliant news this poor boy!

He also shot them in his house, the point being that they were proximate to him, and he could reasonably have felt threatened.

Again no one is disputing that. I'm relying on memory here but he fired a warning shot in the house and the boys ran, he then shot the 16 year old in the back when he was nearly off Tony Martin's property. He had been broken into several times and had had enough but when he shot the teenager he was not in imminent danger of being killed himself.

I think you can believe the right versict was delivered but also acknowledge that if he had been a black man it would have very likey have been guilty. Had he even survived the incident.

Agree with you . So sick of people just listening to the media and not actually watching it for themselves. It was absolutely self defence

@Nyxly

I think you can believe the right versict was delivered but also acknowledge that if he had been a black man it would have very likey have been guilty. Had he even survived the incident.

Did you watch the trial . No about the video that was doctored? Did you try to understand at all why the verdict was not guilty or did you just listen to corrupt media ?

@FOJN

Speaking as someone whose fired one (on a shooting range) they're extremely dangerous weapons.

No one is disputing that but they are legal for open carry in Wisconsin.

I accept that. But you described them as 'not an assault rifle'.

That may in a strict sense be true, in the sense that militaries don't use them, but it's misleading in the context of this discussion. They are designed for shooting people or are suitable for that purpose.

Is Fox off air?

@Truthseeker456 I didn't make a judgement on the verdict. So nor sure what you are talking about.

But it's a fact that black men, in the US, are far more likely to go to prison, on less evidence.

So yes, I think its very likely (not definite) that a black man would have been found guilty.

I’m shocked at some of the replies on here.

He left his house armed with a gun with no license, with the intention of going there and killing people.

@WonderfulYou

I’m shocked at some of the replies on here.

He left his house armed with a gun with no license, with the intention of going there and killing people.

What exactly are you shocked about? Your post is incorrect. There’s a lot of accurate information in these posts. Do you prefer to not know the truth?

That may in a strict sense be true, in the sense that militaries don't use them, but it's misleading in the context of this discussion.

Knowing nothing about guns I did my research so as you said my statement is technically correct. If other people weren't interested enough to do their own research then I don't think I can be responsible for them reaching incorrect conclusions or guilty of misleading them.

It seems some posters here have a better understanding of the case than the jury and the judge.

with the intention of going there and killing people

Not so. If that were the case he'd have been found guilty of murder.

He in my opinion was very misguided and got into a bad situation that went hotting wrong, but nothing about his actions leading up to that point were illegal in that state.

Watched the trial...thats America for you.

It does seem to have been self defence from what I could make out. I think it’s the right verdict but the whole story is depressing.

What exactly are you shocked about? Your post is incorrect. There’s a lot of accurate information in these posts. Do you prefer to not know the truth?

Watch the video.

How many people did he shoot or shoot at?
What was he doing there with a gun?

No one else in the video looks like they even have a gun.
The entire crowd is trying to stop him and shouting that he has a gun.

If he didn’t see the blue flashing lights it would have been a lot worse.

The man he shot but didn’t manage to kill actually was a paramedic who was treating people and had a gun for his own protection.