Do you think that...
- Thread starter 6OSK3RS
- Start date
Yeah a lot of this will depend on the facts of that first shooting. The second one I could maybe see as self defense. Regardless Kyle was looking for trouble that night and so were the other guys, and this is the result. If the first shooting wasn't a clear case of self defense, he'll be spending a lot of time in jail.
Not correct. Watch the video. He was putting out a fire that enraged the rioters and he was attacked and shot at. He then shot and killed one of the people chasing him. Not that it matters but I believe the two morons that were killed have prior rape convictions... good riddance.
I've seen the clips shown on different news broadcasts. Yes, they included footage other than the shooting.
Joeseph Rosenbaum, 1st person shot, spent 10 years in prison for a sex crime and found himself a home in the sex offender database for life.
Anthony Huber, 2nd person shot, had multiple domestic violence charges and a couple other violence related misdemeanors.
Gauge grossgruetz?, 3rd and final person shot, was supposedly a felon for burglary while also in possession of a handgun at the time of the shooting.
I dont believe that anyone should be killed for a prior crime that they committed and already answered for. However, it is a reflection of the character of all 3.
No matter what news agency or their political beliefs, you will not be able to see all of the footage through news agencies. I dont blame you because it's a lot of footage and not everyone has time or interest to sit through it. I find these kind of high profile cases extremely interesting so I tend to get as much information as possible to make my decision.
Starting with Michael Brown, its become very clear that its a bad idea to pass judgment on the initial report. More recently starting with Jussie Smollet the media has done a major disservice with how they report on things.
Yep some folks do take a keen interest in high publicity cases. I have on occasion myself. People will draw different conclusions after watching the videos I suppose.
Oh man. If Kyle walks, there are some news agencies that will foot the bill for probably the largest defamation lawsuit in USA history.
Considering they have had access to the same video footage as the rest of us from day 1, yeah. Unless something else comes out this kid will end up being a billionaire.
. New footage. Self defense all the way.
Last edited:
You have to be 18 to carry the weapon he had, so he’s guilty of at least one crime. A good attorney could use that to make a character attack and paint a picture of general recklessness, arguing for manslaughter. (Maybe, clearly I’m not a lawyer)
At minimum, I think he should at least be charged with whatever they brought against Tamir Rice, since both were minors openly carrying against state law, which (as others have already pointed out) is the only injustice of consequence here.
OH WAIT.
I don't pretend to know all of the laws, but what I saw was the kid being chased by someone that he had words with earlier in the night. That individual was chasing Kyle and certainly didn't appear to be in fear of his life but rather aggressive towards Kyle.
Then when Kyle is leaving that scene he starts to get chased or pursued. One of the videos you can clearly hear someone say something along the lines of "there he is, let's beat his ass". That doesn't sound like the individuals that were chasing him were acting to disarm or in fear as much as being aggressive.
Also, I get the whole narrative of him crossing state lines, but people need to quick making it like he traveled a long ways to go to Kenosha. They are like 30 minutes apart and across the state line. That isn't any different than someone going from Gretna to downtown or CB across state lines.
No matter what, it appears to me that all parties involved went that night willing and ready for violence. People need to quit putting themselves in situations that will lead to these situations. That means the shooter and the people that got shot.
Sure it does. He put himself in a position that led to a death. He wasn’t invited to be there, it wasn’t like it was his neighborhood and shit started going down. In that manner, he is no different than the out of state rioters and looters.
I was following you right up to your final paragraph. No one has the right to physically attack anyone else. If you're attacked though, you absolutely have a God given right to protect yourself.
Kyle Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. There's video of him from earlier in the day cleaning up graffiti on a local school, and then video of him later in the evening running around with a fire extinguisher to put out fires. He's on video stating that he's there to help protect a car dealership. In that video, he points out that he's carrying a first aid kit to help anyone who's injured and that he's carrying a rifle to protect himself.
Put all that aside for a minute and let's pretend he went there for purely nefarious reasons (looking for a fight). Even if there were the case (it wasn't), if you're standing there minding your own business, no one has a right to attack you. Had those thugs not attacked him, they'd all be alive today. All 3 who were shot attacked first. They were stupid and they payed the price for it.
Did those rioters have to attack him?
You're looking at this completely sideways, almost as if the mob had a right or were justified in rioting, looting and burning down businesses.
The bottom line is that they attacked him first. Had they not attacked Kyle Rittenhouse, he wouldn't have shot them. Every video that's been made public so far clearly shows that they were the aggressors.
Fair enough.....I get your point. Maybe Kyle didn't go there looking for trouble, but he certainly was willing to engage if needed.
My main point is all of those involved made choices to go that night with the reasonable expectation that there would be some form of violence. They all made poor decisions when they made the decision to jump into their cars and drive to the protest/riot or whatever we want to call it.
Oh here, let me explain it to you: the reason there have been angry people in the streets across the country all summer long is that sometimes police perceive young black males as threatening, which leads to their swift and public execution. So, when a young white male shows up to confront those angry people with a rifle in his hand, and then gets encouraged by police officers on the scene, it's called a "related event". Get it???
Last edited:
A good attorney could also argue that since he is 17, he is by definition a member of the US militia. The supremacy clause kicks in and Rittenhouse is probably clear of that charge.
the rioters were there, he took it upon himself to be a vigilante. If the city of Kenosha didn’t want to engage these people, a 17 year old from out of state shouldn’t have either. He isn’t a cop from a neighboring town, he clearly went up there looking to engage.
I’m not saying he is guilty of a crime. I am just saying that if something happens, he has no one to blame but himself. Decisions have consequences
100 percent agree that a good attorney would probably go that route. But there is a Wisconsin state law that allows someone 16+ to open carry a rifle or shot gun. The law was meant for hunting but from my knowledge, it actually applies to all and doesn't only apply to hunting. There is a great video of an attorney breaking down the specific law(s) and coming to a conclusion that Klye didn't actually break any firearm posession laws.
Decisions have and absolutely should have consequences. You see it perfectly from Joeseph "little boy toucher" Rosenbaum, and ect. You chase someone down 50 yards who has a rifle, intending to do harm to them, and you get shot. You chase someone 100 yards and commit assault with a deadly weapon on one who is on their way to turn themselves in to the police, you get shot. On the other hand, you see 3 people get shot for attacking someone so you put your hands up and decide to cancel your attack, and you don't get shot. Kyle only shot who he HAD to in order to not get the shot kicked out of him, or worse, like many other people have by rioters and looters.
Best way to not get killed in a riot is to not riot.
That is only for the rioters. Might I add those are acceptable losses. However, the old black man who got gunned down trying to protect his or his friends pawn shop couldn't avoid the riot and was not an acceptable loss to the riots.
Literally everyone in those riots, whether good intentions or bad, is putting themselves in a bad situation asking for trouble. Simple as that. He acted in self defense, but he shouldn't have been there, and neither should anyone else if it turns to riots. There's your answer.
Yep.
Simple as that.
It seems every generation has to figure this out for themselves.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old.
So, not overly concerned with following the law.
Which is who you are choosing to surround yourself with as the rioting, looting, burning, and in the case of this particular riot -- lots and lots of gunfire -- is commencing.
It's a huge gathering of people who aren't overly concerned with following law and order.
It's not legal to go shooting people. It's not legal to go beating someone with a skateboard. It's not legal to assault police or burn businesses.
If you go swimming in the shark tank, you willfully put yourself in a position to get eaten by a shark.
Pretty big difference between concealed carry and open carry. Do you really believe that Rittenhouse was concealing his friends full size 16" barrel AR? Have you not seen a single picture or video of the enture situation, or before/after?
There was a LOT of gunfire happening around Kyle when the whole situation was going down. Definitely more than 20 rounds were fired that were not from Kyle. I am extremely surprised that more people weren't killed from all of it.
I was responding to the question about the law in the state of Wisconsin. But yes, I've seen some of the video. And I honestly try imagining what I might do were I in his shoes. It must have been frightening, and I don't think his reaction should be unexpected. I'm sure he felt like it was life or death. At the same time, if it were my kid and he told me "hey dad, I'm going to drive over to those protests, probably carry a weapon and jump in the middle of a very volatile situation where there has been a good deal of violence. I know, I know, I'm not licensed or old enough to carry a rifle in Wisconsin, nor am I a licensed and trained peace officer, but hey, somebody has to do something, right?" I'd tell him not a freaking chance. But hey, that's just me.
That is very true. As is, the best way to not get charged with killing someone at a riot is not to go to the riot.
Strictest gun laws is the country, and almost no gun violence... oh wait
Both people who were killed were career criminals. Life long of bad decision making caught up with them.
Similar threads
