To Acquit or Not Acquit?

[ScottFitter]

Originally Posted by guysmiley

It's terrible in all ways.

I don't think going there was smart. Nor going there armed. It was really really stupid to involve oneself in an environment that unpredictable.

Completely avoidable situation in my opinion.

I agree with you 100%. However, the same could be applied the other way, as it has been brought up a few times but seems to be dismissed. There is causation for Rittenhouse's actions. If the rioters hadn't of been there, if the police had've done their job, etc. Fact remains that the rioters were there, felons had guns, people attacked a person while knowing full well he was armed, and chose to attack anyway. Again, right from the testimony of the one who got shot and lived, he didn't get shot until he pulled his pistol and pointed it at the person who shot him.

Should Rittenhouse have been there as an untrained, unpaid, undeputized, vigilante as it was posted up before? No, absolutely not, common sense and hindsight can dictate that. However, seeing as he was there and was attacked, he defended himself, in what would seem to be a pretty collected manner.

I'm very interested to see how the rest of this plays out. Weapons charges dropped as he was legal to have the rifle. Now, is it justifiable homicide? Self Defence? Manslaughter? Murder? First or second degree?

Just having a weapon visible is enough to scare off most people, loaded or not, people can't tell the difference. Was his intent to go kill someone or was his intent to actually scare people off and defend himself? I think that may just be the pivotal piece that may sway this case.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by guysmiley

It's terrible in all ways.

I don't think going there was smart. Nor going there armed. It was really really stupid to involve oneself in an environment that unpredictable.

Completely avoidable situation in my opinion.

agree 100%

Originally Posted by cody j

He was running away from them, they chased him down and attacked him. They brought the fight to him

likely crying his eyes out, im surprised he did not throw the rifle away.

Big man/cry baby all depends on how many people are chasing you.

If he had stayed home and watched it on the news like the other 99.99999% of the American polulation he would not be in trial now would he?

This bs that is posted on youtube all the time, people walking around in public with AR variants just to see what the police do to them while they have someone else recording fires up weak minded young idiots.

At some point there will be a mistrial and he will get real time or the death penalty. The States gives in to public outcry and they are screaming for real punishment.

But my crystal ball has veins, do not put too much faith in it lol

[Ken07AOVette]

Baseball bats are legal here. So are golf clubs.

If there is a screaming protest going on at city hall Lloydminster about the snow not being removed, and people start smashing vehicles, when I show up with the driver and Louisville slugger what are my intentions. (Channelling Trochu here)

If I am stupid enough to show up with a weapon, and get chased down the block by angry protestors at some point I will run out of air and have to turn around. I swing and connect, law says that because I am there with more than my hands I am the aggressor. I will be charged. I will very likely be convicted. Even bare handed I am there for the intent of harming others, while in the process of protecting others, if that makes sense.

(Sporty please weigh in)

If this happens in my living room, I will likely be charged, not convicted.

If if if if if

When you go somewhere with a WEAPON, in this circumstance it is not a tool, he was not sustenance hunting or chasing coyotes away from the chickens, it is premediated and he has no legal lawful reason or excuse to be there packing something to kill others.

I can not for the life of me understand why so many can not understand this.

I get the hatred for the police, it is brought up daily but every pinhead with a rifle is not a cop.

[guysmiley]

Originally Posted by ScottFitter

I agree with you 100%. However, the same could be applied the other way, as it has been brought up a few times but seems to be dismissed. There is causation for Rittenhouse's actions. If the rioters hadn't of been there, if the police had've done their job, etc. Fact remains that the rioters were there, felons had guns, people attacked a person while knowing full well he was armed, and chose to attack anyway. Again, right from the testimony of the one who got shot and lived, he didn't get shot until he pulled his pistol and pointed it at the person who shot him.

Should Rittenhouse have been there as an untrained, unpaid, undeputized, vigilante as it was posted up before? No, absolutely not, common sense and hindsight can dictate that. However, seeing as he was there and was attacked, he defended himself, in what would seem to be a pretty collected manner.

I'm very interested to see how the rest of this plays out. Weapons charges dropped as he was legal to have the rifle. Now, is it justifiable homicide? Self Defence? Manslaughter? Murder? First or second degree?

Just having a weapon visible is enough to scare off most people, loaded or not, people can't tell the difference. Was his intent to go kill someone or was his intent to actually scare people off and defend himself? I think that may just be the pivotal piece that may sway this case.

Bingo

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by ScottFitter

I agree with you 100%. However, the same could be applied the other way, as it has been brought up a few times but seems to be dismissed. There is causation for Rittenhouse's actions. If the rioters hadn't of been there, if the police had've done their job, etc. Fact remains that the rioters were there, felons had guns, people attacked a person while knowing full well he was armed, and chose to attack anyway. Again, right from the testimony of the one who got shot and lived, he didn't get shot until he pulled his pistol and pointed it at the person who shot him.

Should Rittenhouse have been there as an untrained, unpaid, undeputized, vigilante as it was posted up before? No, absolutely not, common sense and hindsight can dictate that. However, seeing as he was there and was attacked, he defended himself, in what would seem to be a pretty collected manner.

I'm very interested to see how the rest of this plays out. Weapons charges dropped as he was legal to have the rifle. Now, is it justifiable homicide? Self Defence? Manslaughter? Murder? First or second degree?

Just having a weapon visible is enough to scare off most people, loaded or not, people can't tell the difference. Was his intent to go kill someone or was his intent to actually scare people off and defend himself? I think that may just be the pivotal piece that may sway this case.

Many of us understand the urge, the impossible to ignore pressure to help someone in desparate need. Talk to any volunteer. First in last out, sometimes without care or thought of their own safety, because there is urgent immediate need for aid.

This is not that. This is not the man smashing out windows bare handed to dig kids out of a back seat of a car on fire. It is not someone carrying someone else bigger than them on their shoulders out of a burning house because the bigger guy is too drunk to walk.

This is a child with a gun playing vigilante without thought of consequense.

[guysmiley]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Many of us understand the urge, the impossible to ignore pressure to help someone in desparate need. Talk to any volunteer. First in last out, sometimes without care or thought of their own safety, because there is urgent immediate need for aid.

This is not that. This is not the man smashing out windows bare handed to dig kids out of a back seat of a car on fire. It is not someone carrying someone else bigger than them on their shoulders out of a burning house because the bigger guy is too drunk to walk.

This is a child with a gun playing vigilante without thought of consequense.

Also Bingo.

I understand both sides. Stupid to be there, stupid to go there, stupid to bring a gun but also self defense.

Laws in Canada are not the same as in the US.

I don't have to agree with the laws in the US, but they are there.

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Many of us understand the urge, the impossible to ignore pressure to help someone in desparate need. Talk to any volunteer. First in last out, sometimes without care or thought of their own safety, because there is urgent immediate need for aid.

This is not that. This is not the man smashing out windows bare handed to dig kids out of a back seat of a car on fire. It is not someone carrying someone else bigger than them on their shoulders out of a burning house because the bigger guy is too drunk to walk.

This is a child with a gun playing vigilante without thought of consequense.

I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. This was a young man standing up for what he believes is right and doing so well within the laws of the state/ country he lives in. Nothing he did was against any laws he had a right under their law to pe in possession, he had a right under their law to protect property, he had a right under their law to defend himself. He had every right to choose his stance even if you don't agree with it remember this is the US not canada. None of the things he did are lawful here. No matter whether you believe they should or shouldnt be they are currently NOT lawful here... different place different set of laws. In Canada whether I think it's right or not he would be Guilty. In the US being protected by the constitution he is not guilty of anything I'm my mind hes morally not wrong either. But my idea of what is right or wrong in these areas follow along much closer to those of the USA yours seem to align more with Canada. Since we live in canada both of us are held to what our laws state is legal. He gets to play by different rules and is also protected by those rules. By the rules of his country hes innocent of wrong doing

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Many of us understand the urge, the impossible to ignore pressure to help someone in desparate need. Talk to any volunteer. First in last out, sometimes without care or thought of their own safety, because there is urgent immediate need for aid.

This is not that. This is not the man smashing out windows bare handed to dig kids out of a back seat of a car on fire. It is not someone carrying someone else bigger than them on their shoulders out of a burning house because the bigger guy is too drunk to walk.

This is a child with a gun playing vigilante without thought of consequense.

Well said... Play stupid game and you win stupid prizes. I am not even 100% against some vigilante type behaviours, but the fact is if you choose to act you better be prepared to face the consequences. If you are man enough to take your AR to a riot you should be willing and able to back up your decisions standing in front of a judge and not ball your eyes out all "oh woe is me!". The second he chose to pick up a gun and go he was responsible for his decision, right or wrong.

[silver lab]

Come to my street, riot and try and burn down my neighborhood and see what happens. I would hope more people from other areas come to help (like Kyle).
I’m a little surprised…. (Or not) at the amount of people on here that do not support protecting myself, my property or my neighbors.
No wonder the rural people have such a problem.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by silver lab

Come to my street, riot and try and burn down my neighborhood and see what happens. I would hope more people from other areas come to help (like Kyle).
I’m a little surprised…. (Or not) at the amount of people on here that do not support protecting myself, my property or my neighbors.
No wonder the rural people have such a problem.

Not all of us duck and hide behind closed blinds.

But you have to use your head.

If a lady drives me half an hour (mom is dead) and drops me off at your house when there are a bunch of nogooders with molatov cocktails and assorted weapons , your house that I have no affiliation with and you have not asked me to come, you have no idea who I am, I go walking up the driveway to your house with rifle in hand you will shoot me from your closed blind. I would too.

you are really comparing oranges to claymores.

AND you better know damn well if you call me for help I will be there if possible. I would do that for 99.99999% of the membership here.

[Sporty]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Baseball bats are legal here. So are golf clubs.

If there is a screaming protest going on at city hall Lloydminster about the snow not being removed, and people start smashing vehicles, when I show up with the driver and Louisville slugger what are my intentions. (Channelling Trochu here)

If I am stupid enough to show up with a weapon, and get chased down the block by angry protestors at some point I will run out of air and have to turn around. I swing and connect, law says that because I am there with more than my hands I am the aggressor. I will be charged. I will very likely be convicted. Even bare handed I am there for the intent of harming others, while in the process of protecting others, if that makes sense.

(Sporty please weigh in)

If this happens in my living room, I will likely be charged, not convicted.

If if if if if

When you go somewhere with a WEAPON, in this circumstance it is not a tool, he was not sustenance hunting or chasing coyotes away from the chickens, it is premediated and he has no legal lawful reason or excuse to be there packing something to kill others.

I can not for the life of me understand why so many can not understand this.

I get the hatred for the police, it is brought up daily but every pinhead with a rifle is not a cop.

I'm not quite sure what I should weigh in on, if it's to explain my comment in my post about him not intending to commit murder, then to further elaborate. He was charged with first-degree murder which means premeditated and that is what the jury must deliberate on. Although I can't speak for his mindset before heading there, it will be hard for a jury to conclude that he committed premeditated murder with the evidence that was given.

As for the rest of your posts, I fully agree but from a legal stand point, I don't he's going to be found guilty of first-degree murder as there wasn't enough evidence, and reasonable doubt comes into play.

Either way, IMHO, the US is a 💩 show lately.

Originally Posted by North40Rules

I listen to FOX, that does not mean that I am a radical thinker, it means that I am with the vast majority. Fox has the highest ratings over all other news networks, they do IMO because they are not propagandists like CNN and MSNBC. More and more people are realizing that the others are FAKE NEWS and are switching to FOX as their source of news as well.

Viewership and overall daily ratings for October 2021.

In primetime, Fox News was on top with an average of 2.3 million total viewers. MSNBC averaged 1.2 million ,CNN posted 661,000. More people watch Bugs Bunny Reruns than CNN lol

Fox News isn't propaganda? Since when?

[Cement Bench]

almost brilliant post, thank you

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Look at it this way, for the sake of argument lets pretend you're a lefty protester (not suggesting that you are). You go to a civil unrest festival with your backpack full of anarchy supplies like spray paint, Molotov cocktails and B&E tools and low and behold there happen to be some regular citizens who aren't wearing hoodies and face wraps as disguises and they're carrying rifles. Weird, their faces are plainly visible, as though they have nothing to hide or something... Most people will take that as a sign to tread lightly. Those folks certainly aren't there wanting to shoot anyone, they're just there to be visible deterrents to the anarchy that's been ruining their city. They rationalize that people aren't going to physically attack strangers who are open-carrying AR-15's, handguns, etc. The vast majority of people certainly won't. The mere presence of armed folks is the deterrent, that logic to me means there was clearly no intent. If he had intent he'd have just started spraying the crowd @ random, which clearly wasn't what occurred as the ONLY people who got shot were people who attacked him. Stupid, irrational people whose actions were unpredictable (again, who attacks someone that is holding an AR?). Its a rare breed of psychopath who would start an altercation with someone armed as such. Rosenbaum was just that rage-infused psychopath, snowball effect from there. Suggesting violent intent on the part of anyone who only showed up armed for the purpose of being a visible deterrent is to me very disingenuous.

Remember the part of the video where Kyle tries to surrender to the police and they drive past him? That's because where they're from, its not illegal to have that AR. Of course that wouldn't happen here and someone surrendering like that would be obliged & arrested. Just because some here don't like the concept, doesn't make it illegal.

Stop to think of various outcomes. Lets say he gets found guilty & convicted, now there is precedent and maybe fewer regular non-rioting citizens show up to be visible deterrents. They become slightly more passive. The riots get worse, the lefties more emboldened because this judgement means they can attack defenders; Outcome? More property destruction, assault and murder (left wing rioters have murdered quite a # in the last 2 years, but those just don't get as much press as a Richie Cunningham white kid with an AR, totally wrong narrative)

Not guilty: Rittenhouse is free, but has to look over his shoulder constantly for the rest of his life like he's Salman Rushdie or something. Woke, anarchist rioters aren't quite as emboldened though.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by silver lab

Come to my street, riot and try and burn down my neighborhood and see what happens. I would hope more people from other areas come to help (like Kyle).
I’m a little surprised…. (Or not) at the amount of people on here that do not support protecting myself, my property or my neighbors.
No wonder the rural people have such a problem.

I am with you silver lab, if someone came into my home uninvited, it definitely would not turn out well for them!

[Vingiu]

Lots of these perspectives are choosing to see this as a black and white issue, y’all are confusing the bajeezus out of me.

Too many perspectives like - if X hadn’t been there, then Y wouldn’t have to do *insert dangerous or criminal action here*

Sounds oddly similar to a child saying *but they made me do it!*

For those of us who had decent mothers - remember being scolded for hitting back at a bratty sibling? Same concept as far as I’m concerned

Is it so hard to accept that neither of these groups are blameless? Bunch of unruly children, all of em. They might not have wanted to bring death or prison onto themselves and others, but they willingly took a gamble. Cost of doing business

[Ken07AOVette]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/kyle-ri...-bid-1.5671452

'he is arguing self defense, but you do not get to argue self defense in a situation that you created'.

This is a good video to watch. Listen to what the Lawyer says.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Baseball bats are legal here. So are golf clubs.

If there is a screaming protest going on at city hall Lloydminster about the snow not being removed, and people start smashing vehicles, when I show up with the driver and Louisville slugger what are my intentions. (Channelling Trochu here)

If I am stupid enough to show up with a weapon, and get chased down the block by angry protestors at some point I will run out of air and have to turn around. I swing and connect, law says that because I am there with more than my hands I am the aggressor. I will be charged. I will very likely be convicted. Even bare handed I am there for the intent of harming others, while in the process of protecting others, if that makes sense.

(Sporty please weigh in)

If this happens in my living room, I will likely be charged, not convicted.

If if if if if

When you go somewhere with a WEAPON, in this circumstance it is not a tool, he was not sustenance hunting or chasing coyotes away from the chickens, it is premediated and he has no legal lawful reason or excuse to be there packing something to kill others.

I can not for the life of me understand why so many can not understand this.

I get the hatred for the police, it is brought up daily but every pinhead with a rifle is not a cop.

I think it is because they have more of a jungle law south of the border and they actually can walk with those and other firearms some places. And then the stand your ground thing. Essentially, any idiot can insert themselves into a situation where they don’t belong and then stand their ground. That, in turn, eliminates their responsibility for inserting themselves into the situation in the first place because they are an idiot or can pretend to be one because they have the right. Leaving the intent, which I would think is pretty hard to prove beyond the reasonable doubt.

This dude will not go to jail, imo. He was defending himself. In reality though, the case of self defence ended when he decided to drive over, take the gun, and go where he went. He didn’t randomly walk into a bunch of thugs hitting him with a skateboard and pointing guns at him.

The questions of things being there in the first place is a different story.

Something like that, if it makes sense.

[HyperMOA]

So a question or view of the term vigilante or vigilantism. To be a vigilante, one would be taking the law into ones hands because the actual law enforcement is lacking. (whether that be true or one's perception) This implies that law enforcement is there and functioning, to what degree is debatable. When law enforcement abandon areas and they are no longer operating there, are you still a vigilante?

Just my mind wandering.

[sns2]

All of us come across as "tough guys" from time to time in this chat room. I get a kick out of the guys on this thread mocking Rittenhouse for crying in court. My guess is that if any of us were facing a substantial part of our life behind bars, branded as a racist and white supremacist murderer, with all the extra challenges that would entail, I'm just gonna take a wild guess that we might be in tears too. A kid's brain is not even fully formed as a teen. Sheesh.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

I think it is because they have more of a jungle law south of the border and they actually can walk with those and other firearms some places. And then the stand your ground thing. Essentially, any idiot can insert themselves into a situation where they don’t belong and then stand their ground. That, in turn, eliminates their responsibility for inserting themselves into the situation in the first place because they are an idiot or can pretend to be one because they have the right. Leaving the intent, which I would think is pretty hard to prove beyond the reasonable doubt.

Isn’t this so often the issue with these self defence cases? Trayvon Martin, Markeis McGlockton, Joe Horn and so on.

If the NHL can have an instigator rule why can’t stand your ground laws?

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by sns2

All of us come across as "tough guys" from time to time in this chat room. I get a kick out of the guys on this thread mocking Rittenhouse for crying in court. My guess is that if any of us were facing a substantial part of our life behind bars, branded as a racist and white supremacist murderer, with all the extra challenges that would entail, I'm just gonna take a wild guess that we might be in tears too. A kid's brain is not even fully formed as a teen. Sheesh.

I am not personally mocking him as much as saying if he is man enough to play with guns at a riot, he is man enough to take the rap.

[Smoky buck]

This is an example of what happens when stupid crosses paths with stupid

I see him getting man slaughter in the end

The guy is not a cold blooded killer racist as some try to make him out to be but he is smart like stick when it comes to making the correct choices

If the rioters came to his home and attacked him I would have a different opinion

[kevinhits]

Originally Posted by sns2

All of us come across as "tough guys" from time to time in this chat room. I get a kick out of the guys on this thread mocking Rittenhouse for crying in court. My guess is that if any of us were facing a substantial part of our life behind bars, branded as a racist and white supremacist murderer, with all the extra challenges that would entail, I'm just gonna take a wild guess that we might be in tears too. A kid's brain is not even fully formed as a teen. Sheesh.

x2. well said.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

This is an example of what happens when stupid crosses paths with stupid

I see him getting man slaughter in the end

The guy is not a cold blooded killer racist as some try to make him out to be but he is smart like stick when it comes to making the correct choices

If the rioters came to his home and attacked him I would have a different opinion

Smoky, you are likely right. Life rarely plays itself out in black and white.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by tirebob

I am not personally mocking him as much as saying if he is man enough to play with guns at a riot, he is man enough to take the rap.

Bob, I didn't have you in mind when I was writing. Along with Twisted Canuck, you are likely one of the most level-headed guys on this forum. TC would likely get the nod though. He should be on you guys' radar as next mod.

But is the rap he is facing the correct one? This is the bigger question.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

This is an example of what happens when stupid crosses paths with stupid

I see him getting man slaughter in the end

The guy is not a cold blooded killer racist as some try to make him out to be but he is smart like stick when it comes to making the correct choices

If the rioters came to his home and attacked him I would have a different opinion

Which brings up this couple. A mob broke into a gaited community and they stood to protect their property, which outraged the liberal Left and they were convicted of a minor charge in the end, probably to appease the outraged idiots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...weapons-count/

Grizz

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by sns2

Bob, I didn't have you in mind when I was writing. Along with Twisted Canuck, you are likely one of the most level-headed guys on this forum. TC would likely get the nod though. He should be on you guys' radar as next mod.

But is the rap he is facing the correct one? This is the bigger question.

Uh, nope. Bob is way more chill then I am. And I am not mod material, no how no way.

You trying to start something Bucko?

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by tirebob

I am not personally mocking him as much as saying if he is man enough to play with guns at a riot, he is man enough to take the rap.

My Great Uncle was brought to tears when he shared his story of the killing of others during the war. Was he a coward too?

One of the toughest men I ever met was brought to tears when he shared with me the story of taking out a ship near England during the war. As a life long seaman he saw the other sailors as brothers in arms in spite of having to fight them. Cowardly too I suppose?

Taking a life is heart wrenching even when justified or unavoidable. Anyone that could go over in detail their role in ending another's life without emotion is a sociopath, not a hero.

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by sns2

Bob, I didn't have you in mind when I was writing. Along with Twisted Canuck, you are likely one of the most level-headed guys on this forum. TC would likely get the nod though. He should be on you guys' radar as next mod.

But is the rap he is facing the correct one? This is the bigger question.

Oh I didn't think you did but it made me think about what I posted and I wanted to make sure anyone else didn't construe what I said as such.

As for him facing the right charge, I am not one to say what is appropriate or not as I am not familiar enough with US laws to say with any authority what is accurate or not, but he absolutely is not a simple victim in this saga. He made decisions which resulted in the deaths of others and of the situation he finds himself in, as did the people who ended up dead by his hand. That is not to say it is all on him, but some of it definitely is.

In the end, the kid was an idiot with a rifle and he needs to accept responsibility for that. To what degree, I will leave that in the hands of the jurors.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Uh, nope. Bob is way more chill then I am. And I am not mod material, no how no way.

You trying to start something Bucko?

Well, at the very least we know you would ban yourself when you feel like you are are starting to lose it

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by MK2750

My Great Uncle was brought to tears when he shared his story of the killing of others during the war. Was he a coward too?

One of the toughest men I ever met was brought to tears when he shared with me the story of taking out a ship near England during the war. As a life long seaman he saw the other sailors as brothers in arms in spite of having to fight them. Cowardly too I suppose?

Taking a life is heart wrenching even when justified or unavoidable. Anyone that could go over in detail their role in ending another's life without emotion is a sociopath, not a hero.

Again, I am not saying the reaction isn't a natural one, but it is largely the result of his own bad decisions, so I do not personally feel sympathy for his tears the same way I would feel for the solider whose tears were the result of following orders.

Edit - Not once did you hear me call him a coward, nor insinuate it either just for the record. I am saying he can cry all he wants... It just doesn't make one bit of difference in regards to his choices.