Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, if the goal of the US government was to increase gun ownership and mobilization among civil rights groups, they have sure done it.

The goal of the courts should be to enforce the laws as they stand.
Whether the laws themselves are adequate is a different issue.

Do you think the court enforced the law as it currently stands with a degree of accuracy?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think we need a review of right-to-carry laws especially for a 17 year-old. Are we going to return to the old wild west with everyone armed? I'm not sure I trust the maturity level of random strangers.

Funny thing, but there were often gun control laws within city limits in the 'wild west'.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[wandering peacefully]

Not *any* idiot. Only white right wing idiots.

The Wisconsin that let Kyle Rittenhouse off scot-free is also the Wisconsin that's trying to convict Chrystul Kizer of first-degree murder for killing her rapist and trafficker.

Chrystul Kizer, sex trafficking victim accused of killing alleged abuser, wins appeal

Reconstruction: America After the Civil War

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That the American justic system works.
For over 30 hours the jury looked at the evidence and found him to be not guilty.
I would say that they did their job to the best of their ability.

Much as I dislike the actions Rittenhouse took, or the laws that enable them, I tend to agree with you.

 

[Kooky]

He did kill.
But could you please tell me the legal requirements that make the right of self defense applicable?
Thank you

I will not, because that was never part of my argument. I don't care what the law says, because my point does not concern the law, but the morality of engineering a situation that allows a white supremacist to kill two people in "self defense".

You can go through my posts and you will not find a single complaint concerning the legality of his killings.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, he killed two people but he did not murder them.....big difference there.
However, if you are biased aganist the person, which it appears your are, you can use the term "killer".
However, by doing so all you are doing is showing animosity toward Rittenhouse and those that want to accept the jury's decision.
Either that or your just trying to"stir-the-pot"

And once again you start argueing in direct contradiction to your earlier words. We have established that killing is moral in certain circumstances. And yet, you get completely bent out of shape when I accurately call a man who killed two people a "killer", even though by your own argument there is nothing inherently wrong about killing people, so long as it happens in the right circumstances!

So what's it gonna be? Are killers always evil and morally incorrect, or is it sometimes perfectly fine to be a killer?

Do you want to have your cake, or eat it?

 

[esmith]

And once again you start argueing in direct contradiction to your earlier words. We have established that killing is moral in certain circumstances. And yet, you get completely bent out of shape when I accurately call a man who killed two people a "killer", even though by your own argument there is nothing inherently wrong about killing people, so long as it happens in the right circumstances!

So what's it gonna be? Are killers always evil and morally incorrect, or is it sometimes perfectly fine to be a killer?

Do you want to have your cake, or eat it?

First your definition of "killer" is different from mine. Therefore, I find your argument invalid
Depends on the type of cake.

 

[Kooky]

First your definition of "killer" is different from mine. Therefore, I find your argument invalid

How do you define "killer"? I define "killer" as "a person who has killed people".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has issued a statement about the acquittal:

A pastoral message on the Rittenhouse acquittal
11/19/2021 4:00:00 PM

Dear church,

In the book of Leviticus we read: "You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor" (19:15).

Our social message on Community Violence urges us to become more involved in countering the reality and fear of violence in our communities and our neighbors' communities, pursuing justice and seeking peace no matter how long the journey or complex the challenge.

When a child is allowed to become a vigilante without recourse, we are forced to confront the idols of our society: guns, violence and white supremacy. To be sure, this is not about one person, but indeed about all of us, together.

Today's acquittal is an injustice. It points to the disorder in which we all live. As we seek to restore justice; so also will we restore God to God's rightful place at the center of our life together.

In Christ,

The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

A pastoral message on the Rittenhouse acquittal

 

[Debater Slayer]

Kyle Rittenhouse showed himself to be a pathetically irresponsible adolescent fool. Sadly, that is not, in and of itself, illegal.

The real travesty of justice was committed, not by Rittenhouse and certainly not by the jury, but by a State electorate that enabled and endorsed an open-carry invitation to vigilantism.

Absolutely agreed. The situation with Kyle Rittenhouse is a symptom, not a cause. It is primarily a product of faulty gun laws and insufficient restrictions on vigilantism and militia-like actions.

Were he to be convicted, it would need to be based on existing laws, not ideal ones that aren't in place (not yet, anyway). That existing laws allowed all of this to happen in the first place seems to me the real issue.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is obvious that this what some desperately want to believe, but it is simply not the case.

The vast majority of US cities are not as mindlessly braindead as places like Portland, Oregon. Kyle will be welcome in plenty of communities, most people won’t concern themselves about his past as they’ll have their own issues to worry about, plenty of people will honor the fact that he was found innocent of all charges, and others won’t even know who he is or won’t even care.

The few who do hate him? Their irrational hatred of him will fade in time. Sooner or later, another straight White male, and/ or Conservative, will take the stage front and center who becomes the new and latest boogeyman of the perpetually offended for them to scream and cry about in their left wing echo chambers. That cycle will never end for these people because they bring this Hell upon themselves. Their cognitive dissonance, their hypocrisy, their lack of discipline over their emotions, and the manner in which they are so easily manipulated by their favorite media and politicians... will not as easily fade away.

Somehow this kind of emotionally charged, logically hollow rant is now standard rhetoric in U.S. politics. It's sad, to say the least.

To those of us who are not as invested in hyper-partisan identity politics as your post indicates you are (which is especially inconsistent given that you're criticizing others for supposedly being that way), your position seems almost no different from supporters of the extremist left who endorse violence and even abusive dictatorship (e.g., the USSR) when it suits their ideological bias.

 

[Estro Felino]

I will not, because that was never part of my argument. I don't care what the law says, because my point does not concern the law, but the morality of engineering a situation that allows a white supremacist to kill two people in "self defense".

You can go through my posts and you will not find a single complaint concerning the legality of his killings.

I am a jurist, so I exclusively apply the law.
But I do respect your opinions on the moral implications of this case.


By the way, there is self defense
A) when there is a direct, actual and simultaneous danger (so it is not applicable when the defense is put into action after the danger has disappeared)

B) when the defense is proportioned to the offense

 

[esmith]

How do you define "killer"? I define "killer" as "a person who has killed people".

A person who in the act of a crime terminates the life of another human.

 

[Revoltingest]

A person who in the act of a crime terminates the life of another human.

Words have ostensible meanings, but also connotations.
Some mischievous people will select words to mislead by
connotation, while hiding behind broad meaning, eh.

 

[Kooky]

B) when the defense is proportioned to the offense

Not in the US, as far as I know. Many states have "stand your ground" laws that do not require proportional response, only sufficient fear on part of the killer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not in the US, as far as I know. Many states have "stand your ground" laws that do not require proportional response, only sufficient fear on part of the killer.

It's interesting that you don't acknowledge validity
of self defense. Anyone who kills, justified or not,
is a killer....they're all the same.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not in the US, as far as I know. Many states have "stand your ground" laws that do not require proportional response, only sufficient fear on part of the killer.

If we look at the evidence, it looked like a horror movie. Rittenhouse being chased twice. The second chase was even more terrifying.

 

[Kooky]

If we look at the evidence, it looked like a horror movie. Rittenhouse being chased twice. The second chase was even more terrifying.

Yes, and if I can plausibly explain that I was really afraid, I get to kill people and get off scott free, even though it was I who waltzed into a peaceful protest armed with a deadly weapon. Wonderful, isn't it?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, and if I can plausibly explain that I was really afraid, I get to kill people and get off scott free, even though it was I who waltzed into a peaceful protest armed with a deadly weapon. Wonderful, isn't it?

There is Free will.
You can use your own free will to simply ignore a person with a rifle.

 

[Kooky]

There is Free will.
You can use your own free will to simply ignore a person with a rifle.

You can use your own free will not to kill people.