Kyle Rittenhouse a hero? (update - not guilty on all charges)

[NationalTitles18]

No question he was stupid for being there, but he had as much right to be there as anyone else.

Not with a gun, he didn’t.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Not with a gun, he didn’t.

Okay, so he should be charged with a misdemeanor for being 17 and open-carrying a rifle in WI.

If he were a year older then there's zero issue with him carrying the rifle - and that doesn't change anything wrt the outcome.

 

[AlexanderFan]

He should never have been there in the 1st place. As I said in a previous post, taking an assault rifle to an angry protest is asking for trouble. And he found it.

Stop playing the whataboutism card. He got what he was looking for, and he's on trial for it. I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail.

This is not whataboutism. He has as much right as anyone else to be there. You deal with the facts of what happened. He didn’t murder those people. Did he have a firearm illegally? Most probably so. So did the guy he shot, but you seem to only want to roast one of them.

 

[Go Bama]

Did he have a firearm illegally? Most probably so. So did the guy he shot, but you seem to only want to roast one of them.

The other guy is dead. There's no point to roasting him. Or are you talking about the guy who got shot in the arm?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

This is not whataboutism. He has as much right as anyone else to be there. You deal with the facts of what happened. He didn’t murder those people. Did he have a firearm illegally? Most probably so. So did the guy he shot, but you seem to only want to roast one of them.

The permit was in his mother's name. He wasn't old enough to possess it. Whether the victim had a firearm legally or not is irrelevant to the crime...

 

[NationalTitles18]

Okay, so he should be charged with a misdemeanor for being 17 and open-carrying a rifle in WI.

If he were a year older then there's zero issue with him carrying the rifle - and that doesn't change anything wrt the outcome.

It changes everything. If he isn’t there carrying a firearm illegally none of this happens. Period. Give him youthful offender status if it helps you feel more secure, but I thought we wanted bad guys with guns off the streets.

 

[AlexanderFan]

The permit was in his mother's name. He wasn't old enough to possess it. Whether the victim had a firearm legally or not is irrelevant to the crime...

Not when people are attempting to make being there in the first place a crime. You’ve told me that doesn’t hold up in court.

 

[tattooguy21]

I see him getting convicted of several crimes, murder and manslaughter not one of them with the way the prosecution has handled the trial so far. I didn't think the self defense argument had a chance a year ago. But with the video and prosecution's witnesses......hell, I'm not sure I'd even put rittenhouse on the stand (which is unorthodox in a self defense case).

 

[crimsonaudio]

It changes everything. If he isn’t there carrying a firearm illegally none of this happens. Period. Give him youthful offender status if it helps you feel more secure, but I thought we wanted bad guys with guns off the streets.

The point is you'e focusing on a misdemeanor charge that only exists because he wasn't a few months older. I've readily admitted he shouldn't have been there, but neither should there have been people there trying to cause harm to others. If he were a few months older these guys still chase after him threatening him and he still shoots them.

Maybe - MAYBE - people shouldn't threaten and chase someone carrying a firearm if they don't want to get shot.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The point is you'e focusing on a misdemeanor charge that only exists because he wasn't a few months older. I've readily admitted he shouldn't have been there, but neither should there have been people there trying to cause harm to others. If he were a few months older these guys still chase after him threatening him and he still shoots them.

Maybe - MAYBE - people shouldn't threaten and chase someone carrying a firearm if they don't want to get shot.

And you are pretending it doesn't matter when it does.

MAYBE people should not illegally carry and transport across state lines then kill someone(s) if they don't want to do jail time.

 

[crimsonaudio]

And you are pretending it doesn't matter when it does.

MAYBE people should not illegally carry and transport across state lines then kill someone(s) if they don't want to do jail time.

And you're acting as if the two are related, when in actuality they aren't. The legality of the firearm doesn't impact whether or not he was legally justified in shooting his attackers.

I get that you've already convicted him in your mind, but thankfully the prosecution will have to prove he is guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever the jury decides, I'm fine with - I've steadfastly called him out since the beginning of this thread. But misdemeanor gun charges do not nullify one's right to self defense.

 

[NationalTitles18]

And you're acting as if the two are related, when in actuality they aren't. The legality of the firearm doesn't impact whether or not he was legally justified in shooting his attackers.

I get that you've already convicted him in your mind, but thankfully the prosecution will have to prove he is guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever the jury decides, I'm fine with - I've steadfastly called him out since the beginning of this thread. But misdemeanor gun charges do not nullify one's right to self defense.

So if they were felony they would? And you actually believe they aren't related when if he has no illegally obtained and possessed gun he would still have shot these two people?

 

[crimsonaudio]

So if they were felony they would? And you actually believe they aren't related when if he has no illegally obtained and possessed gun he would still have shot these two people?

The charges are unrelated, that's my point. If he were a few months older, all of the discussion regarding his possession of a firearm would be moot.

These are the two charges they can realistically get him on, from the evidence I've seen so far:
- Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
- Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government (regarding the curfew)

The first charge makes sense, the second one is silly as many of the witnesses called also violated it but aren't charged. So yes, they can get him on a misdemeanor for carrying the rifle, that's good.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The charges are unrelated, that's my point. If he were a few months older, all of the discussion regarding his possession of a firearm would be moot.

These are the two charges they can realistically get him on, from the evidence I've seen so far:
- Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
- Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government (regarding the curfew)

The first charge makes sense, the second one is silly as many of the witnesses called also violated it but aren't charged. So yes, they can get him on a misdemeanor for carrying the rifle, that's good.

But he was not a few months older so it's not moot and the two thing are related, since you like going around in circles.

 

[crimsonaudio]

But he was not a few months older so it's not moot and the two thing are related, since you like going around in circles.

You can ignore the point all day but neither his age nor the legality of his firearm will have anything to do with whether or not he's convicted of shooting those chasing him.

 

[NationalTitles18]

You can ignore the point all day but neither his age nor the legality of his firearm will have anything to do with whether or not he's convicted of shooting those chasing him.

Whatever.

 

[twofbyc]

Deleted

 

[NationalTitles18]

Out of curiosity, why was he not charged with a Class H Felony under Wisconsin law? Did the weapon in his possession not legally quality as a short barreled rifled? Is this law still on the books?

Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

 

[twofbyc]

Maybe it's just me, but taking an assault rifle to an angry protest is pretty much the same as taking a burning acetyline torch to to a forest of dry timber. WTH was he expecting to accomplish?

The other guy is dead. There's no point to roasting him. Or are you talking about the guy who got shot in the arm?

the guy who got shot dead in the garage/parking area was shot twice. I don’t think he was armed and video doesn’t necessarily show he was grabbing for the gun; not the video I saw, anyway.

 

[92tide]

Out of curiosity, why was he not charged with a Class H Felony under Wisconsin law? Did the weapon in his possession not legally quality as a short barreled rifled? Is this law still on the books?

Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

he’s white and conservative