Kyle Rittenhouse - hero

[Derek1111]

You can argue Wisconsin gun law is bad, or debate whether he was truly defending himself, but please stop spreading the misinformation that Kyle Rittenhouse was breaking the law before he even pulled the trigger. That is not true. The judge threw that charge out because it conflicted with Wisconsin law.

Without arguing for or against Wisconsin statute, it basically is summarized as this:

Possession and control of firearms outside of family land, require the accompaniment of a person 18 or more, until the person is 16.

From 16 to 18 rifles and shotguns may be carried openly without the presence of an adult, but not dangerous weapons as defined by law. Under Wisconsin statute this means a gun with a barrel shorter than 12 inches (concealable)

From 18 to 21 legal weapons may be carried openly, the list of dangerous weapons no longer applies, but concealed carry is still prohibited.

Age 21 or over, a concealed carry permit shall be issued if applied for. Most adults are eligible.

So Kyle (being 17) was legally allowed to carry his weapon, as long as he did not try to conceal it, and if he was being supervised by an adult, he could have been as young as 12.

I've checked the law, and it seems you're right. I am amazed by this inconsistency, and do not believe that there is a coherent self-defense argument. But yes, it seems that untrained 17 y.o.s are allowed to wander around riots in the state of Wisconsin carrying lethal weapons. I'll research more before I post next time.

 

[Derek1111]

I feared that justice would not be done. There were a lot of worries that some jurors had their minds made up before the trial and were not persuadable by law or evidence.

Some people wanted Kyle punished for standing up to the rioters and not allowing Kenosha to burn. Others don't care about the law or the facts, they just know what is right in their hearts - and in their hearts, Kyle is a killer who must pay.

Fortunately, the jury decided to follow the facts and the law to the only just verdict - innocent on all counts.

no, that really wasn't the only verdict that was possible. Nice try, though.

 

[Lewisofthenorth]

from what I see out there its very fair. Its git me waiting to see what happens next instead of feeling like it's worked through

 

[LeGato]

no, that really wasn't the only verdict that was possible. Nice try, though.

But it's the verdict that the jury handed down. I'm sure we will be alright in Wisconsin.

 

[Derek1111]

Facts (nor the legal system) cares about Feelings.

Luckily for some people, and without commentary on this case, verdicts don't always tally with the law; especially in high-profile cases. You assuredly don't need these listing.

 

[Derek1111]

But it's the verdict that the jury handed down. I'm sure we will be alright in Wisconsin.

I'm not arguing what the verdict was. I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't inevitable. I do hope that you are alright in Wisconsin and more widely in the US, of course.

 

[LeGato]

from what I see out there its very fair. Its git me waiting to see what happens next instead of feeling like it's worked through

Wooo Lewis joined! Welcome to CF.

 

[RDKirk]

I'll be interested to see if the same people who still see Rittenhouse as a vigilante will hold the same view of the black guy that mowed down children with his SUV in Waukesha.

Why would they have the same view? The two situations are not similar in any way. Why would they see Darrell Brooks as a vigilante?

That's totally non sequitur response.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think it's something to monitor.

If the legal system is applied correctly and the result still doesn't sit right with people, there could be a serious problem brewing if the outrage is strong enough.

I've heard a lot of people distinguish between murder (unlawful killing) and killing in self defence (permissible). They state that KR was killing in self defence. I don't know if that's true or not. Maybe it was self defence and maybe it was murder - I guess you'd have to know what he was thinking at the time?
(I say this because, the news I read, stated this case of murder or self defence is about whether or not he reasonably believed his life was in danger)

To know whether he reasonably believed this or not, one only need to see the videos taken that night which recorded the entire incident. The jurors in the case examined the video, which were played many times, often frame-by-frame to micro-analyze what happened (a luxury KR didn't have at the time). They concluded he reasonably acted in self defense.

My reading of the situation in america is that - legal self defence or not - many people feel that something horribly immoral happened. Is this fair?

Only when they buy into the popular narratives put out by the government and popular media, which smeared KR as a White Supremacist, which there is no evidence of. They even said he fired his rifle randomly into a crowd, when he actually only fired 3 shots, all of of which were at extremely close range of individuals who were physically attacking him. They called him a vigilante (and still do), even though he was there cleaning up messes made by rioters, offered medical help, and was guarding a business.
Meanwhile, the rioters, the looters, and the arsonists are referred to by the media as "peaceful protesters". Do you see how the media is causing a problem?

The justice system may be unable to cope with the incoherence from "the people" (Left and right demanding two different things).
In other words - the collapse of your institutions / war.

Yes, and I do believe that is coming. Many people seem to see it. That's why gun sales and food sales are up, people are giving up and leaving their jobs, and businesses are closing. There's a sense of hopelessness. That's not helped when the government/media/schools teach children to see each other according to skin color, and that whites are oppressors and black are oppressed/victims who can't do anything on their own without help, or the standards being lowered for them.

 

[Aldebaran]

If Kyle Rittenhouse was there to protect a place, he should have been at the place he was there to protect.

He was when he was attacked and the first shooting happened. That's the point when he was chased by the mob. If he had stayed "at the place he was there to protect" after that and shot more people in the mob while not trying to get away from them, then he would be accused of killing people to defend property. Oh, that's right, they still accuse him of that anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

While I think Kyle Rittenhouse precipitated a dangerous situation by being unnecessarily out on the street with his rifle, the other people certainly participated in making it incredibly more dangerous by trying to take the rifle from him.

He was out in that street because he was trying to escape the mob coming after him.

 

[Aldebaran]

You know they won't...
People in bad taste all over the internet are already saying that those people were run over in "self-defense".

I wonder if that's also the defense he'll use for running over his child's mother with the same vehicle.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

… … …

‎The Economist Podcasts: Checks and Balance: America on trial on Apple Podcasts

The link is an example of the news on the topic that I listened to on the way to work … if you listen to it, let me know what you think.

my hope is that they at least try to give a fair analysis.

 

[RDKirk]

He was when he was attacked and the first shooting happened. That's the point when he was chased by the mob. If he had stayed "at the place he was there to protect" after that and shot more people in the mob while not trying to get away from them, then he would be accused of killing people to defend property. Oh, that's right, they still accuse him of that anyway.

No, that's not how it would have happened if he'd been at and stayed at the place he was protecting, and they'd happen to have attacked that place.

 

[RDKirk]

I wonder if that's also the defense he'll use for running over his child's mother with the same vehicle.

If you want to discuss that incident, start a topic for it. It's silly trying to twist it into this topic.

 

[Lewisofthenorth]

I wonder if that's also the defense he'll use for running over his child's mother with the same vehicle.

 

[Lewisofthenorth]

Its already known that he's whacko every time he's in a situation beyond his control. He looses his mind and does not care who he hurts. It has zero in common with the other case. It could read like this though. The guy driving had no intention of self defense but he was on a street using it as a street so you can't say he crashed a barricade and enterloped. Since his car is legal to drive you cant call it a weapon, since it was this or that you can't consider that or this but my God makes me see with my own eyes not 12 people being told what evidence to consider as real based on an unnassociated fact. Law often steps around righe and wrong to make use of a fool. Look at Ozwald.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, that's not how it would have happened if he'd been at and stayed at the place he was protecting, and they'd happen to have attacked that place.

If he had stayed there and fired on his attackers rather than try to get away? Yes, they would have pointed out how he could have escaped, but chose to stay and "kill to defend property". In fact, people are saying that even though he did try to escape, which illustrates how facts don't matter to some people.
I don't know how other states regulate self defense, but in Wisconsin, there's a "duty to retreat". We don't have a Stand Your Ground law here. We have Castle Doctrine, but that only applies in one's home.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Its already known that he's whacko every time he's in a situation beyond his control. He looses his mind and does not care who he hurts. It has zero in common with the other case. It could read like this though. The guy driving had no intention of self defense but he was on a street using it as a street so you can't say he crashed a barricade and enterloped. Since his car is legal to drive you cant call it a weapon, since it was this or that you can't consider that or this but my God makes me see with my own eyes not 12 people being told what evidence to consider as real based on an unnassociated fact. Law often steps around righe and wrong to make use of a fool. Look at Ozwald.

Please stay on the topic of Kyle Rittenhouse - Hero.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The whole thing shouldn’t have happened because the police in Kenosha should have been there to protect the citizens of Kenosha and their property.

It was bad enough that law failed to provide protection. But they went further and said not only will we not protect you, we’ll prosecute you if you protect yourself. In other words, we will protect the criminals against the law-abiding.

A more important issue than the morality of Rittenhouse’s actions is the morality of prosecuting Rittenhouse despite all of the exculpatory evidence.