Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[ADigitalArtist]

Self defense is never "execution". If you have to use loaded terminology it indicates a weak argument. People had a reasonable reaction to rioting.

As I said, provoking violence destroys self defense claims. He went there to shoot people. He wanted to do it, had the motive and means to do it. And with testimony and footage that he shot someone when they no longer were a threat (execution), it's no wonder there is outcry at this verdict, agree with it or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree on that. The instincts at a time like that kick in. Especially if one has trained at all. For example I can count to thirty one using the fingers of one hand. By drumming the order out I can "count" that number in less than five seconds. I do not have to think out "one . . . two .. three.." One does not have the time to think out each shot in such a situation.

Training to fire without thinking seems... negligent to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, provoking violence destroys self defense claims. He went there to shoot people. He wanted to do it, had the motive and means to do it. And with testimony and footage that he shot someone when they no longer were a threat (execution), it's no wonder there is outcry at this verdict, agree with it or not.

But he did not "provoke violence". At least I never saw him do so. Nor apparently did the jury, and they had far more evidence than I had. It appears to be only your assumption that he went there to shoot people. You have not supported that claim one iota.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Or you could be merely very very wrong.

K. *watches US falling in education, life expectancy, quality of life, and raising in crime, poverty and illiteracy.*
Sure thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Training to fire without thinking seems... negligent to me.

But that is only because you do not know why police do that. Now I am not saying that Kyle was law enforcement in any way, but he did apparently have hopes for that as a career. He did take some training in firearm usage. In a self defense situation the correct action is to shoot until the threat is clearly over. There is no time to stop and evaluate after every shot. When a person is only a few feet away from another the attacked person does not have the luxury of asking "Is he still attacking". There are many cases of people taking a horrendous amount of gunshot wounds and continuing an attack. That is why police are taught to shoot as they do and people that take self defense courses in handling guns are probably taught the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

K. *watches US falling in education, life expectancy, quality of life, and raising in crime, poverty and illiteracy.*
Sure thing.

Uh huh. They may be connected, but likely not very strongly if at all. I see other forces behind those problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure thing, sea lion.

Wow! Name calling. You are making rather ridiculous claims. They may be strong beliefs on your part but that does not excuse your actions. When you make a claim you need to be ready to support it. The fact is that twelve people with far more evidence than either you or I have disagreed with you. I could see what looked like clear self defense to me. I would even be willing to go over the evidence. It is not unreasonable to ask you to support what appear to be unreasonable and unjustified claims.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The fact is that twelve people with far more evidence than either you or I have disagreed with you. I could see what looked like clear self defense to me.

If there is anything I've learned from living in third-world countries my whole life, it is that unquestioning trust in the impartiality and soundness of judges and the legal system is the road to hell.

 

[Lain]

(Not that I think our system will meaningfully change through votes either.)

What will lead to meaningful change in your view?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is anything I've learned from living in third-world countries my whole life, it is that unquestioning trust in the impartiality and soundness of judges and the legal system is the road to hell.

That is fine. One should do that. But questioning is not refuting. Personal indignation is not evidence. I saw the judge putting restrictions on both sides. For example all of the three persons that were shot had criminal records. Some of them very serious offenses. That information was not allowed in trial. Nor were mere speculations of why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha allowed. In fact the one time that the judge got very angry at the prosecutor is when he tried to bring in such "evidence" into the trial.

You may think that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people. Others see the gun as no different from a fire insurance property on one's house. It is there in case needed, not because one wants to set fire to one's house or because one wants to shoot others.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What will lead to meaningful change in your view?

Honestly I'm not sure yet. I think the system is so corrupt, with so much predatory gerrymandering, voter suppression and oligarchic tendency that voting is one of the least feasible avenues for change. But what ends up being the thing that changes things could be anything from revolution (by which I mean any sort of major restructuring that doesn't happen via vote) to the status quo retiring and being replaced by a very different new generation of politicians (not holding my breath on that one but it could happen.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is fine. One should do that. But questioning is not refuting. Personal indignation is not evidence. I saw the judge putting restrictions on both sides. For example all of the three persons that were shot had criminal records. Some of them very serious offenses. That information was not allowed in trial. Nor could mere speculations of why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha were allowed. In fact the one time that the judge got very angry at the prosecutor is when he tried to bring in such "evidence" into the trial.

You may think that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people. Others see the gun as no different from a fire insurance property on one's house. It is there in case needed, not because one wants to set fire to one's house or because one wants to shoot others.

My point isn't that the judges were wrong; I'm not familiar with the case enough to conclude such a thing. What I'm saying is that the verdict isn't necessarily just or correct merely because 12 judges voted for it. If you lived in almost any third-world country, you would be better off keeping in mind that judges are as prone to being corrupt, biased, and unreasonable as everyone else.

The main things needed to uphold justice, in my opinion, are a sound legal system and constituton, and it seems to me that the United States' gun laws gravely miss the mark in both of these areas.

 

[Brickjectivity]

He does not appear to have any money of his own and I do not know if one can sue future earnings. I don't think that there will be any lawsuits of that sort since there would be no money for the lawyers.

I don't know, either. For all I know he might request a new identity from a court and get one.

 

[Mister Emu]

My point isn't that the judges were wrong; I'm not familiar with the case enough to conclude such a thing. What I'm saying is that the verdict isn't necessarily just or correct merely because 12 judges voted for it. If you lived in almost any third-world country, you would be better off keeping in mind that judges are as prone to being corrupt, biased, and unreasonable as everyone else.

The main things needed to uphold justice, in my opinion, are a sound legal system and constituton, and it seems to me that the United States' gun laws gravely miss the mark in both of these areas.

It wasn't 12 judges, but 12 everyday Americans pulled at random from the community the alleged crime was in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place?

Why did he move TOWARD danger with a weapon that was illegal for him to own?

Brandishing? Maybe he was trying to stir up trouble.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It wasn't 12 judges, but 12 everyday Americans pulled at random from the community the alleged crime was in.

That doesn't negate my point that U.S. gun laws need fundamental reform, though... not to mention that the whole verdict could have been different with different judges. They still had significant influence on the outcome of the case regardless of who else was involved in the legal process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He does not appear to have any money of his own and I do not know if one can sue future earnings. I don't think that there will be any lawsuits of that sort since there would be no money for the lawyers.

Apparently, there's some dispute about whether he gets the $2 million in donated money that was posted for his bail. Not sure how that's going to shake out.

Disputes continue over Rittenhouse bond money

 

[Nakosis]

I live in Portland. I have insurance. It's an occupational hazard I accept running a small business.

I would gladly burn it down if it meant we meaningfully addressed the growing white supremacy, gun abuse and police corruption in this country. And I sure as **** think it's more likely to come about with civil disobedience than quiet, ignorable protests if our country's history is any indication.

But that's a larger subject for another thread.

I doubt burning down other people's property addresses anything. More likely than not, it just escalates until we get more vigilantes going about shooting people.
Peaceful protest, absolutely. Destruction of property cannot be tolerated. Preferably through non-lethal means.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oops, sorry, my bad, thank you for your informative post regarding use of accurate firearm technology. Honestly, I currently don't own any semi-auto firearms, I did own a 9mm Smith and Wesson semi auto pistol that I exchanged for a .357 magnum revolver. After all, I don't want to be hypocritical about how I'd like private ownership of high capacity magazines to be effectively banned by having private owners of high capacity rifle magazines heavily taxed and registered in a national database registry.

I'm a Canadian, and have never owned -- nor even wanted -- a gun of any kind at all. Honestly, totally zero interest in such a thing.

 

[Mister Emu]

He does not appear to have any money of his own and I do not know if one can sue future earnings. I don't think that there will be any lawsuits of that sort since there would be no money for the lawyers.

Given that he has an acquittal, and the massive amount of evidence supporting him, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to win a lawsuit against him.

Is the pedophile who threatened to kill him and then attacked him going to be a winnable civil suit?
Or the domestic abuser who strangles women, who took it on himself to attack Kyle twice, while Kyle was running to the police, with a deadly weapon going to be it?
Or the burglar who said on stand that he was afraid for Kyle's life and that he wasn't shot until he had pointed a gun at Kyle's head?
No. None of them have a case.

However, I expect a flurry of lawsuits by Rittenhouse soon for the blatant and correctable lies several media outlets produced and are still producing. He won't have as easy a case as Sandmann, but it's possible he ultimately walks away with 9 figures just the same.