Rittenhouse

[LilCerberus]

^ And? That makes it ok to go to a riot and murder people? 

Well, goin' back to my first post on this thread, He was practicing a hell of a lot of trigger discipline for somebody getting the natural living s**t beat out of him....

[RCMerchant]

^ It would never had happened if he didn't go to the riot with a gun. Why did he go there?
Gimme a break. He wanted to have s**t happen to him so he could use that gun. If your running the street with a gun, I would think that people will attack you. The cops are the ones to do their job to quell the rioters- not some teenage vigilante. f**k all that.

[lester1/2jr]

just because he did something stupid doesn't mean it's then open season on him.

He still had rights.

the problem was people conflated the legal idea of a protest with a riot, which is something else entirely. You don't have a first amendment right to burn stores down

it was inevitable that something like this would happen

[RCMerchant]

just because he did something stupid doesn't mean it's then open season on him.

He still had rights.

the problem was people conflated the legal idea of a protest with a riot, which is something else entirely. You don't have a first amendment right to burn stores down

it was inevitable that something like this would happen

Stupid? Stupid?

The riots were BAD. I think the rioters should be arrested.

But he killed people, man!

[LilCerberus]

He also had a fire extinguisher & a medical kit...
He was hoping to be a good Samaritan, not a vigilante....

His troubles started when he & another man put out a dumpster fire that rioters were pushing towards a gas station (not clear, but I think the station was owned by his father)...

Convicted pedophile, wife beater & white supremacist Joseph Rosenbaum didn't appreciate his fire being put out, so he decided to kill Rittenhouse...
Now of course, his past wouldn't have mattered to Rittenhouse, just that Rosenbaum beat him up & was trying to kill him....

His reasons for being there were a a lot more understandable than the out of state anarchists who showed up in George Soros provided buses to destroy Kenosha, many of whom had their own AR-15s, as videographer Richie McGinniss not only testified in court, but also showed in his own footage of the riots.

[Alex]

I haven't followed this case enough to have a view on it either way, but I did see a post elsewhere that I guess might be relevant here.

From a military legal worker:
I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.
First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.
This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.
However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.
While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.
He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."
First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.
Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.
This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.
This has been my Ted Talk.

[LilCerberus]

^What is your source for this? 'Cause there's a couple of things that contradict the video evidence, trial testimony, & Wisconsin laws cited by the judge & the defense...^

^It sounds more like the media spin.^

[Paquita]

My opinion – He’s not a hero or a monster.  He’s a dumb country kid that didn’t want to pass up an opportunity to look like a badass and fulfill a possibly over-inflated sense of purpose when he was invited by his friends to protect some businesses.  I think he hoped to grow some chest hair, get some pictures, and have a cool story and hopefully find some way to get laid out of this.  I did not always think that, I thought he was a chest pounding idiot gun enthusiast that couldn’t wait for an excuse to put himself in a situation where he could pull the trigger.  I watched a lot of the trial, all of the last few days actually, and it completely changed my mind.

Alex – I don’t know where you got that quote, but I’d like to pick up the mic that guy just dropped and offer a rebuttal :):

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

I’m not sure that self defense statement is true, but it’s irrelevant because it was determined in court that he was actually not in violation of Wisconsin state law by carrying the weapon per statute 948.60 (3) (c ) and the charge was thrown out.  This is a super-confusingly written statute, but it sounds like 16 and 17 year olds can carry certain weapons like Rittenhouse’s:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

While that does seem kind of stupid on the surface, I believe the intent is for teenagers of driving age to be able to legally carry weapons.

The Castile Doctrine is clearly not relevant so I don’t know why he spends so much time on it..

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun.

Not true about Rittenhouse chasing the "first protester" – there is testimony and video from several angles that show Rittenhouse passed by Joseph Rosenbaum (the protester/victim according to this person) who was with another man, Joshua Ziminksi, that did have a gun.  Rittenhouse ran from them, and was chased by them, while Rosenbaum was shouting at him.  Rittenhouse did not turn and shoot until after he heard gunshots from behind him (an FBI video shown by the prosecution showed that very clearly).  I really struggled with this one myself because Rosenbaum was unarmed.  However, when I thought it through, I think I would have done the same thing if I am being honest with myself.  He can’t run forever and would eventually get slowed down by a crowd of people.  What would he do when Rosenbaum caught up to him?  Even if you’re a good fighter, can you effectively do hand-to-hand combat with a weapon strapped to you?  It seems irresponsible to put down your weapon in the midst of a riot in favor of fisticuffs.  And what if you’re not a good fighter? What happens if you’re overpowered?   The unarmed man would now be armed, putting you and others at risk.  There is testimony that Rosenbaum was threatening Rittenhouse and the group he was with earlier in the day, and video of him shouting racial slurs, and telling people to shoot him.  I think he had reason to believe Rosenbaum had hostile intent and he was in imminent danger.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.

Video shows the crowd began to disperse when the first gunshot was fired by Ziminski and there was really no one but his pursuers behind him.  

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

By nightfall, anyone there was no longer protesting, but regardless, the “protesters” were chasing and taking blows at him as he got closer and closer to the police line (he is also on video telling one of the guys he shot he’s trying to get to the police), after he fell, he was jump kicked on the ground by “jump-kick man” as he was called in court, who jump-kicked Rittenhouse to “subdue” him.  This is also on video from several angles.  Anthony Huber tried to “subdue” Rittenhouse by beating him over the head and neck with his skateboard, he was the second person shot. The last guy he shot (and did not kill) comes off as a slimeball.  There’s clear video that he pulled a gun and was aiming at Rittenhouse’s head as he was seated on the ground when he was shot in the arm.

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.
Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

THIS is what really makes me doubt this poster is real at all.  Paralegal my balls.  First, this has nothing to do with Jacob Blake other than the protest earlier in the day was in response to his death, so that’s not at all relevant.  However, there are several sources of criminal records for all three men that Rittenhouse shot:

Joseph Rosenbaum - https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556

The others are lesser offenders, but their criminal history is summarized and linked here:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/

While the jury did not know the criminal history, nor did Rittenhouse when they were shot, I do think Rosenbaum’s pedophile history is relevant being that his victims were boys under the age of 12.  From what I saw and heard while watching the trial, I think Rosenbaum singled out Rittenhouse earlier in the day because he looked like a 12 year old kid playing soldier and he wanted to knock him down a notch and found the perfect opportunity when he caught him alone later that night.  

Maybe I’m being too maternal, but I can’t blame a 17 year old kid for wanting to go do something that seemed meaningful and made him feel like a tough guy.  The presence of a weapon is usually a pretty effective deterrent to criminals without having to be used, but I don't think he should have been invited or allowed to go to this type of thing. I more blame the adults in his life that encouraged him – this is why parents tell their kids “you’re not going out looking like that” or “don’t take your guns to town”.  There were many groups of people in Kenosha with guns defending property and he was just part of one of those groups, but possibly one of the youngest or youngest looking.  He was with a group or going between the car lots accompanied by an adult most of the day and he actually unintentionally got separated from the adult he was with and it was on video.    

I hope I don’t lose friends over this.  I love you guys.  Don’t be mad at me.  I tried not to get into this case. I am not political, I don't know anything about guns, but I do follow crime, unsolved murders, etc. and this one really hit my heart.  I try not to be passionate about things without being informed.  I think justice was done here, but Kyle is not a hero.  Just a kid.  And I hope he does not become a monster because of all this.

[Alex]

To be honest I've not really followed the trial (when the topic was posted, I'd to search to find out who he was and it brought back vague memories of hearing about it when it first happened) or anything, like I said I just saw the post and thought people might be interested. It isn't one I agree with or disagree with, just put it up for discussion.

[Paquita]

I understand!  I just got really incensed by the poster because he basically said “I’m qualified and my opinion is more valid because XYZ and there’s a lot of misinformation going around so let me clear this up…” and literally went on to repeat some of the same misinformation he is claiming to clear up… even stuff that is very easily debunked.  I think he’s a troll.  It’s also really frustrating because so many people did not watch the trial and are curious or still have that same opinion I had from the reports that came out last summer and are looking for a quick summary of events to do a gut-check or an opinion from a trustworthy source and they find this guy, and might actually think he is being truthful.

[Allhallowsday]

I understand!  I just got really incensed by the poster because he basically said “I’m qualified and my opinion is more valid because XYZ and there’s a lot of misinformation going around so let me clear this up…” and literally went on to repeat some of the same misinformation he is claiming to clear up… even stuff that is very easily debunked.  I think he’s a troll.  It’s also really frustrating because so many people did not watch the trial and are curious or still have that same opinion I had from the reports that came out last summer and are looking for a quick summary of events to do a gut-check or an opinion from a trustworthy source and they find this guy, and might actually think he is being truthful.

You've done wonderful job of clarification!