Rittenhouse Acquitted of all charges

[GoblinCampFollower]

I don't know about Wisconsin, but in many states, if you commit a crime and someone dies as a result, you are responsible for it. Kyle committed a few crimes here, and two people died as a result.

Yes, that's called felony murder. This only applies for very specific crimes like robbery, arson, sexual assault and maybe a few others. I don't think him having his gun illegally qualifies him for this particular charge.

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

Because he'd clearly created the predicament in which he found himself, through his reckless and irresponsible decision to travel, with his rifle, to somewhere he had no legitimate business, though, I don't think he should escape responsibility entirely.

Since he clearly considered the situation in Kenosha so dangerous that he needed to take a rifle, and he had no legitimate business there (there was a curfew in force), it's wrong, to my mind, that he should be exonerated after his foolish, immature and reckless posturing cost two men their lives.

Wasn't he actually asked to be there and help defend property by some family friend though - so it wasn't completely of his own making. It was at least partly the adults who 1) asked a 17 year old kid to play cop and 2) provided him with an AR-15 to do it with.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Wasn't he actually asked to be there and help defend property by some family friend though - so it wasn't completely of his own making. It was at least partly the adults who 1) asked a 17 year old kid to play cop and 2) provided him with an AR-15 to do it with.

I believe you are correct. I can think of several people who apparently contributed to making this perfect storm of stupidity happen.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Wasn't he actually asked to be there and help defend property by some family friend though - so it wasn't completely of his own making. It was at least partly the adults who 1) asked a 17 year old kid to play cop and 2) provided him with an AR-15 to do it with.

I don't know. The evidence on that seems somewhat contradictory

Things we learned from Kyle Rittenhouse's trial that challenge assumptions about the case | CNN

Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial in Wisconsin was highlighted by the emotional testimony of the 18-year-old man whose actions as a minor have become emblematic of a divided America.

edition.cnn.com

but even if the friend or the property owner did ask him, that doesn't necessary make his presence there with a gun in any way reasonable.

He could always have refused the request, after all -- the fact there was a curfew in force, for example, should have given him pause for thought, particularly since he was, or had been, a member of some sort of police explorer program and might reasonably have been expected to understand the importance of his obeying police curfews, or at least to ask the Kenosha police if his presence there would be welcome.

Others are certainly not without responsibility but, quite simply, he should have known better.

 

[Romana]

I agree with Ron.

 

[WolfEyes]

I agree with Ron.

Me, three.

First time I ever saw Ron Perlman was when he played Vincent in Beauty and the Beast. He was the perfect Beast.

 

[Spirits Rising]

Only a matter of time before someone decides to flush shit-in-house down the drain - as he should be at this point.

 

[Romana]

Only a matter of time before someone decides to flush shit-in-house down the drain - as he should be at this point.

If they don't, her may end up as TFG's campaign manager.
Conservatives on Twitter area all pointing out how one or more of the victims had a checkered past, abuse or some shit, if they even have the right facts, so what? Teen murderer didn't have any way of knowing any is it when he shot them, so how does that make his killing them "righteous" (yes, I actually saw someone use that word)?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Verifying Device

Evernote link

So you can head for a highly charged situation armed with an army-style weapon which you carry openly. If someone approaches you threateningly you can shoot them. In this case the irony of the gun lobby’s claim that gun ownership makes you safer is illustrated by the fact that it was his own gun that Rittenhouse was frightened of being killed with, and that Grosskreutz’s gun was what got him shot.

Here in the UK, where it is illegal to “carry any knife in public without good reason, unless it has a manual folding blade less than three inches long”, the mere possession of such weapons seems crazy. But we are invariably reminded that America is a different society with a frontier history (when, one wonders, does that excuse run out?) and a love of hunting (with a semi-automatic?).

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Verifying Device

Evernote link

This article is correct, but you have to keep in mind how stupid a lot of Americans are.... I've RECENTLY heard bullshit like like:

1) We need guns to potentially overthrow tyrannical government. ....because apparently tanks and missiles don't exist.

2) If you implement gun control, criminals will keep their guns and law abiding citizens will be the only ones who give theirs up. ...because apparently the rest of the world that successfully implemented gun control, doesn't exist.

And oh... get this... this is the best part... I even once heard number 2 from a Swedish person who is weirdly sympathetic to American Republicans.... like he had no idea his own country proved this idea wrong.

A lot of Americans also seem to have this fallacy that we can't tighten gun control or right to carry laws at all without totally removing all guns...

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

I don't know. The evidence on that seems somewhat contradictory

Things we learned from Kyle Rittenhouse's trial that challenge assumptions about the case | CNN

Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial in Wisconsin was highlighted by the emotional testimony of the 18-year-old man whose actions as a minor have become emblematic of a divided America.

edition.cnn.com

but even if the friend or the property owner did ask him, that doesn't necessary make his presence there with a gun in any way reasonable.

He could always have refused the request, after all -- the fact there was a curfew in force, for example, should have given him pause for thought, particularly since he was, or had been, a member of some sort of police explorer program and might reasonably have been expected to understand the importance of his obeying police curfews, or at least to ask the Kenosha police if his presence there would be welcome.

Others are certainly not without responsibility but, quite simply, he should have known better.

I would agree with you if he were 27 and not 17. Seventeen year old males aren't known for "knowing better," usually quite the opposite.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I would agree with you if he were 27 and not 17. Seventeen year old males aren't known for "knowing better," usually quite the opposite.

Indeed not, which is why -- at least in the UK -- we deal with them far more leniently when they break the law than if they're over 18.

However, this does not prevent our punishing them with immediate custodial sentences when the consequences of their stupidity become too serious, as when they celebrate passing their driving test in the pub with their mates and then smash the car up afterwards, killing one of their best friends in the process (happens all too often) or when they take a knife with them "for self protection," get into a brawl and someone ends up needing major surgery.

Do you say we treat 17-year-olds too harshly in the British courts?

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

Also - there's a very large park in the town where I live where it's commonly known to be unsafe after dark. If I walk through that park after dark, a man attacks me, and I shoot and kill him - who's at fault? Me for being in the park after dark when everyone knows it's not safe? His for being the sort of scum bag who would attack a woman? And if we say it's my fault because I clearly had to be looking for trouble by walking through the park after dark - then aren't we saying criminals have more rights than ordinary citizens?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Also - there's a very large park in the town where I live where it's commonly known to be unsafe after dark. If I walk through that park after dark, a man attacks me, and I shoot and kill him - who's at fault? Me for being in the park after dark when everyone knows it's not safe? His for being the sort of scum bag who would attack a woman? And if we say it's my fault because I clearly had to be looking for trouble by walking through the park after dark - then aren't we saying criminals have more rights than ordinary citizens?

Do teens generally come from 20 miles away for an after-dark stroll in this dangerous park, armed with rifles in case they're attacked? Do you think that should be encouraged?

There's a difference, to my mind, between carrying a weapon as you go about your daily business because you fear you might be attacked (which most Brits will have experienced only in uniform and probably somewhere like Iraq or Afghanistan) and making a special journey to a trouble spot, armed with a gun because you think you're likely to need it.

To my mind, when there's rioting and public disorder going on, both children and adults should be strongly discouraged from adding to the problems of law enforcement by coming to the area from out of town, bringing guns with them.

Over here, if you use reasonable force to defend yourself, that's generally lawful self-defence, but if you've deliberately armed yourself beforehand because you fear you may need a weapon, and if you then it and cause someone serious harm, you're likely going to have an uphill struggle to persuade a court you didn't go looking for trouble and find it.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Do teens generally come from 20 miles away for an after-dark stroll in this dangerous park, armed with rifles in case they're attacked? Do you think that should be encouraged?

There's a difference, to my mind, between carrying a weapon as you go about your daily business because you fear you might be attacked (which most Brits will have experienced only in uniform and probably somewhere like Iraq or Afghanistan) and making a special journey to a trouble spot, armed with a gun because you think you're likely to need it.

To my mind, when there's rioting and public disorder going on, both children and adults should be strongly discouraged from adding to the problems of law enforcement by coming to the area from out of town, bringing guns with them.

Over here, if you use reasonable force to defend yourself, that's generally lawful self-defence, but if you've deliberately armed yourself beforehand because you fear you may need a weapon, and if you then it and cause someone serious harm, you're likely going to have an uphill struggle to persuade a court you didn't go looking for trouble and find it.

Agreed. I think there is also a clear distinction between a concealed weapon vs one you wave around for all to see. I remember seeing this post from a libertarian group cleaning up trash for the community! ...with open carry firearms because that was totally necessary. The fact that waving the gun around immediately escalates tensions is something that many Americans totally fail to get. I know people who take pride in being totally comfortable around firearms and make fun of people who get uneasy around a gun as if there was no reason to be!

I think at this point, American gun culture is self sustaining. They take a lot of pride in sticking it to the liberals and the the backfire effect is in full effect. They can't admit there is something wrong with this, and they think that if they give an inch, they may as well surrender their guns entirely.

Very few Americans actually want to get rid of all the guns. But most people would love to see stronger background checks and a ban on open carry in most public spaces at least. ...but to many gun rights enthusiasts, agreeing to such things would be an unforgivable surrender.

 

[Romana]

Very few Americans actually want to get rid of all the guns. But most people would love to see stronger background checks and a ban on open carry in most public spaces at least. ...but to many gun rights enthusiasts, agreeing to such things would be an unforgivable surrender.

The same mentality as the anti-vax and anti-mask crowd, and the same people.

 

[Clara D.]

This article is correct, but you have to keep in mind how stupid a lot of Americans are.... I've RECENTLY heard bullshit like like:

1) We need guns to potentially overthrow tyrannical government. ....because apparently tanks and missiles don't exist.

While *wanting* a tyrannical fascist government, no less.

And oh... get this... this is the best part... I even once heard number 2 from a Swedish person who is weirdly sympathetic to American Republicans.... like he had no idea his own country proved this idea wrong.

I ditched a Swedish "friend" because she went full MAGAT, besides being a TG Jordan Peterson apologist. Trumpism is a cancer that's metastasized to the rest of the world. >_<

A lot of Americans also seem to have this fallacy that we can't tighten gun control or right to carry laws at all without totally removing all guns...

Like all the regulations about car ownership have removed all of them!

 

[Romana]

I ditched a Swedish "friend" because she went full MAGAT, besides being a TG Jordan Peterson apologist. Trumpism is a cancer that's metastasized to the rest of the world. >_<

Same, except mine was Welsh.
Why a guy in Wales would embrace that stupid "let's go Brandon" meme is beyond me.
I told him if he really meant it to unfriend me, which he did.
Him liking our current president is not a requirement, but that meme indicates that whole mindset.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Same, except mine was Welsh.
Why a guy in Wales would embrace that stupid "let's go Brandon" meme is beyond me.
I told him if he really meant it to unfriend me, which he did.
Him liking our current president is not a requirement, but that meme indicates that whole mindset.

As I stated above, it can be surreal when someone who's not American uses an argument that only makes sense if you don't know there is a whole world outside of America. Like... did you know that the global market for oil is totally dependent on the performance of the US President? It's kind of almost understandable how many Americans believe that, but not when Europeans do...

 

[Innula Zenovka]

As I stated above, it can be surreal when someone who's not American uses an argument that only makes sense if you don't know there is a whole world outside of America. Like... did you know that the global market for oil is totally dependent on the performance of the US President? It's kind of almost understandable how many Americans believe that, but not when Europeans do...

I don't think I've ever heard that, save in the obvious circumstances where something the US does, or doesn't do, that upsets oil prices (imposes sanctions on Iran or somewhere, or upsets the Russians).