Prosecuting Rittenhouse Is Completely Unjust

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Monahorns, Nov 9, 2021.

  1. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Based on the video evidence and the admission of guilt of one of his attackers, how is this case not dismissed immediately?

    The video evidence has been available for months. I watched most of it. It justifies Rittenhouse's actions.

    Now the prosecution's witness admits that he pursued Rittenhouse and pulled a gun on him before Rittenhouse raised his weapon to defend himself.

    Rittenhouse was actually doing the job policemen and EMT should have been doing in Kenosha. Maybe they were, but not enough of them as the situation called for. Another case of corporate media and celebrities being 100% wrong on purpose. If there is justice in the world he will be acquitted and have several successful civil lawsuits against those who slandered him.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    He was illegally carrying that weapon. That's indisputable. Rittenhouse had no business being in Kenosha that evening. He injected himself into the situation, creating the problems by doing so.

    Honestly, Kenosha is example #1 on the idiocy of our concealed/open carry laws. If none of those civilians were holding guns (illegally) then nobody dies that night.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 8
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The "Disagree" from @ Garmel was expected. Would love to hear your perspective @Statalyzer.
     
  4. Horn2RunAgain

    Horn2RunAgain 1,000+ Posts

    Good point. Only rioters had "business being in kenosha " that night.:confused2:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Do you ALWAYS start your debates by putting the words in your opponents mouth? That's a pretty weak and ignorant strategy.
     
  6. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    The only law Rittenhouse broke was that he was a minor carrying a firearm. Beyond that, he walks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not going to pretend to be an internet lawyer but it would seem to me that Kyle Rittenhouse qualifies for what is a law in most states as Reckless Endangerment.

    Per Findlaw:


     
  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    SH, then why isn't the prosecution going after any of those things? This isn't a case of illegal gun possession or endangerment.

    Ha ha. You're funny. The definition of reckless endangerment doesn't even support your case. He was there to protect private property because the police weren't and provide first aid to anyone hurt. The gun was for personal protection. It is his God-given right to protect himself, regardless of what man's law says.

    Do you get to decide? Is your moral and ethical standard the one all others should be forced to follow or otherwise forfeit their lives or freedoms? Jeez.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I don't have all the information that the prosecutors have so I'll have to rely on their judgement. "Reckless Endangerment" was a minimum charge, IMHO.

    Great. We'll have to agree to disagree that Rittenhouse' actions conformed to this:
    "the criminal offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. Whether you meant any harm or not, creating a situation that puts someone else at risk is illegal"

    Was Rittenhouse deputized? Did he have a right to play vigilante to protect someone else's property? Which "God" are you referencing? Not sure they have standing in this legal situation.

    He didn't live in Kenosha, didn't have right to be holding a gun and there were police/emergency on site. You and Kyle may not like their methods but then your complaints should have been registered to them rather than some vigilante justice.

    I also don't think protesters from outside of Kenosha shouldn't be there. Regardless, law enforcement had full responsibility for enforcing the law whether that be against a rioter or a wannabe vigilante.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2021
  10. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    When it was revealed he only shot people who pointed a gun at him, case should have been dismissed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    He shot 3 people, not all pointed a gun at him. Rittenhouse' lawyer made the case that a skateboard could be used to decapitate an individual as justification for shooting one individual.
     
  12. Horn2RunAgain

    Horn2RunAgain 1,000+ Posts

    Not always, by any stretch. When I see a comment so obviously off base and incorrect, then I will consider it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    "they" = She/Her... :)
     
  14. TEXnSEATTLE

    TEXnSEATTLE 1,000+ Posts

    those were PEACEFUL PROTESTERS, SIR!!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Said another way, rather than understand the opponents position you are OK with leaping based on assumptions based on whatever caricature you have in your head.
     
  16. TEXnSEATTLE

    TEXnSEATTLE 1,000+ Posts

    and the guy who got his bicep blown into a zillion pieces testified to that in court, yesterday.....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's one...keep in mind that Rittenhouse had already shot and killed 1 individuals before this person approached him to try to take his weapon away. He'd continue on to kill another individual armed with a deadly skateboard immediately after shooting this guy in the arm.
     
  18. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    He also testified that Rittenhouse never pointed at anyone until he was attacked or had a gun pointed at him.
     
  19. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    His purpose in being there wasn't to endanger anyone but to protect. And he wasn't acting recklessly. He wasn't waving his gun at people. He wasn't initiating aggression or even escalating things until his life was at risk.

    Did he need to be? People can't volunteer for things? Maybe the property owner didn't want him to protect their property I don't know. If so, then he shouldn't have gone against the owner. The God of the Bible who created the universe. His laws and created order are above any of man's laws.

    He didn't live in Kenosha. Finally a true statement.

    Well, the policemen in the area talked to him, recorded on camera. They had no problem with him being there. So why would you? Kyle wanted to participate. The policemen didn't disagree. So again, why do you get to decide for these other people? Who made you their judge?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe not decapitate, but it could be used as a deadly weapon. Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life in that situation.

    I bet you made the decapitate comment up by yourself just to make your argument seem less spacious.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    Ironic, coming from the judgiest judge of them all.
     
  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    There were other vigilantes like Rittenhouse in Kenosha. Ask yourself why none of the others ended up in a confrontation directly with the protesters. Therein lies your answer to why Rittenhouse was reckless. He jumped into a situation, left the vigilante crowd with his loaded illegally obtained AR15 and moved into direct conflict with the protesters. Is there culpability for the first protester that attempted to take his weapon away? I'll say sure. Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in that situation with his gun but I'd apportion a part of the culpability to the first victim. After that, he's all on his own. He'd killed a protester then was shocked when the crowd advanced to take the gun away? Some here have a one-sided view of vigilantism skewed only by their political motivations.

    Again...he volunteered for what? He followed some yahoo Facebook organizer who also wasn't a business owner in Kenosha. The Facebook group had more political leanings than a desire to protect Kenosha. Expect that to come out in the trial.

    "The God of the Bible" has no standing in a Wisconsin court room. Based on my Lutheran teachings God wouldn't support Rittenhouse showing up in Kenosha with an AR15 so you bastardizing the teachings for your personal viewpoints is a bit arrogant, don't you think? Somewhat the antithesis of what the bible teaches.

    The Police department in Kenosha failed miserably in their part with the embracing of the vigilantes. They contributed to the culture of reckless endangerment and will very likely end up paying out million$ as a result. Their acquiescence in no way justifies Rittenhouse' actions that evening.
     
  23. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    No, this was literally the argument by Rittenhouse' lawyer. He literally said that a protester (the 2nd person Rittenhouse murdered) was trying to "separate [Rittenhouse'] head from his body" with a skateboard. Again...in full context this was after Rittenhouse was retreating after already murdering one individual.

    If you can't see how laughable that claim is, how self serving it is for the defense and how crazy the claim is then I'd urge you to take a step back to reality for a moment.
     
  24. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    "Mr Rittenhouse faces seven charges - including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide - after he shot and killed two men and injured a third during a racial justice protest in Kenosha,"

    A racial justice protest? It was a freaking riot. LOL!

    No, a skateboard won't decapitate him but if he gets hit by it and is knocked down he would then be overwhelmed by the rioters, which could be his death. Rittenhouse had every right to shoot the SOB.
     
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    He had no business being inside the police line with the protesters carrying a weapon that he had illegally. I advocated for "Reckless endangerment" above. Here is the findlaw definition of Reckless Homicide:

    Rittenhouse was reckless. Illegally obtaining the AR15, taking his illegal gun with him to the protest, getting anywhere near the protesters, approaching the protesters by himself then running away after shooting the first victim as if he was guilty.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  26. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    OMG. I'm not saying people should be forced to do one thing or another. That was my comment. You and SH are. People can disagree and argue and try to influence each other. That doesn't make someone judgy.

    If you are commenting about my fascist comment, I am using the terminology technically.
     
  27. TEXnSEATTLE

    TEXnSEATTLE 1,000+ Posts

    after this comment, might I suggest you listen to the testimony and watch the actual footage of what happened....you comments suggest you have not educated yourself with the actual facts of what took place.....the actions are ALL on video and then verified by many people called by the prosecution at the trial....yes, the prosecution has screwed their own pooch with the words of the eye-witnesses that were called to support their claims and they only cemented Rittenhouse's self-defense actions....
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Hot Hot x 1
  28. mb227

    mb227 5,000+ Posts

    The fact that the gun may have been possessed contrary to WI gun laws does NOT obviate his right to defend himself when attacked.

    He had ties to the community.

    Witnesses for the State did the job of proving the self-defense case. Then the State's cross of the photographer called by Defense makes the prosecutor look even MORE like an idiot.

    Somewhere, Marcia Clark is breathing a sigh of relief that there really IS a bigger idiot in a televised case than she was...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. mb227

    mb227 5,000+ Posts

    Lefty was a far better witness than ANYONE the Defense could possibly have called...especially when Lefty got there prosecutor to face-palm after admitting Kyle only fired on him AFTER he drew down on Kyle...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. mb227

    mb227 5,000+ Posts

    It matters NOT one iota what the law in other States might be...the ONLY law that matters is what is in the Wisconsin Code AND what Kyle was charged with. And so far, the State did a pretty good job of proving up self-defense...
     

Share This Page