Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Mister Emu]

How is it being dismissed? If it's self-defense it's self-defense even if they were previously the curers of cancer and possessed every virtue under the Sun, and if it isn't self-defense they were unjustly murdered even if they were Hitler triplets (Godwin), so either way it seems irrelevant. I don't think it's dismissed as much as it is irrelevant to everything.

The truth gives us context the law does not allow for. These people were not innocent protestors merely using their first amendment rights, they were bad faith actors. Psychopaths using the opportunities of the day to cause havoc, I think that's pertinent context to the situation especially in dealing with moral as opposed to legal culpability.

If you drew your weapon in response to an active shooter who had already killed two people, would the shooter be justified in shooting you?

If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. Kyle wasn't an active shooter, and he knew that because he was running with him/behind him. He interviewed him, he wasn't shooting into the crowd. Kyle only shot those who were intent on murdering him. That's what self defense law protects, that's why he was acquitted.

If I drew my gun on a person who was retreating and killed them, I would be rightly charged with and convicted of murder, regardless of what I thought about the status of the legality of their other shootings. If I drew my gun on someone who was in the midst of being attacked by a mob and they were armed I would have every expectation of being shot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It portends that anyone who wants can carry around semi automatic weapons at any public gathering and be able to decide what constitutes danger and when it is reasonable to use deadly force with zero training unlike police who have many hundreds of hours of training and still can't get it right some times. It means don't go to demonstrations in states where any idiot can walk around in public waving an AR-15, kill two people and walk off scott free. No gun control anywhere, anytime for any reason. That's the new Merica.

The main reason that he went free is because they reacted emotionally instead of rationally. Were there crimes that they could have found Rittenhouse guilty of? Probably. The problem was that they grossly overcharged him and as a result the jury had to find him innocent.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not think that suing after the fact would be about justice. That is more about revenge. Justice was done in court, even though many do not like the verdict. To me it looked like a legal attempt at lynching.

Really? I'm not going to argue, but I confess I'm slightly shocked that you have said that.

I hope that you might enlighten me a bit on why you think so, because I confess, I see it very differently.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not providing justice.

I don't think in discussing the situation, that we should dismiss that what we have is three evil people attacking a minor who was running away or had been hit to the ground in every interaction.

How hard is it, I wonder, to shoot someone 4 times, when you are "running away?" I mean, when I'm running away, I usually have my back turned to what I'm running from. Shooting somebody does seem to imply at least slowing down (more likely stopping), turning, standing, taking aim -- and firing. That sure seems to be what happened in the first killing, where the fatal (fourth!) bullet entered from the neck area and travelled down into the body.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you believe that killing people is morally justified when the victims are sufficiently "evil"?

Sometimes seems to me that Americans generally suppose that. But I'm just an onlooker....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It appears that you may be misusing the word "victims".

How would you use the word in this case?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I'm not going to argue, but I confess I'm slightly shocked that you have said that.

I hope that you might enlighten me a bit on why you think so, because I confess, I see it very differently.

They rushed to charging him. It took them far too little time to look at the evidence and come up with appropriate charges. That is an emotional response. They did not look critically at the videos to see if it was self defense or not, and those videos were available very early on. When one tries to rush justice the result is often injustice. It was rather clear that all three shootings were self defense. For example over a year ago when the videos first came out people realized that Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To all the members posting in this thread (on any side of the argument, I don't care), I'd like to ask one question:

How would you feel, if you yourself took the life of another human being?

And before anyone accuses me of being disingenuous, I'll be the first to answer: I could not bear it. I could not vote for the death penalty. I could not kill anyone. I couldn't even try. I would hate myself forever, and longer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you use the word in this case?

Do you want a politically correct one or an openly honest one? When someone attacks a person that has a gun for no good reason "suicide" does not appear to be unreasonable. They were not victims since there was no crime in that regards by Rittenhouse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To all the members posting in this thread (on any side of the argument, I don't care), I'd like to ask one question:

How would you feel, if you yourself took the life of another human being?

And before anyone accuses me of being disingenuous, I'll be the first to answer: I could not bear it. I could not vote for the death penalty. I could not kill anyone. I couldn't even try. I would hate myself forever, and longer.

Even if justified I would be questioning myself for the rest of my life. Knowing that I had to would be rather weak solace for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Curious where you’re from and what you know to paint an entire country in such broad strokes.

To be fair, the news media can do that to people
who don't live here. It's the spotlight fallacy.
Tis up to us to provide an alternative view.
White supremacy in my area is just a loathed
thing that pops up rarely in their tiny noisy public
demonstrations. Haven't had one in a long while.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They rushed to charging him. It took them far too little time to look at the evidence and come up with appropriate charges. That is an emotional response. They did not look critically at the videos to see if it was self defense or not, and those videos were available very early on. When one tries to rush justice the result is often injustice. It was rather clear that all three shootings were self defense. For example over a year ago when the videos first came out people realized that Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot.

I don't disagree at all that there was a measure of "self defense," but I have to ask, as the prosecution did, if you yourself instigate the situation in which you then have to defend yourself --- is it justifiable?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To be fair, the news media can do that to people
who don't live here. It's the spotlight fallacy.
Tis up to us to provide an alternative view.
White supremacy in my area is just a loathed
thing that pops up rarely in their tiny noisy public
demonstrations. Haven't had one in a long while.

Just wait until your neighbours find our you're a haggis eater --- white supremacy's got nothing on those who hate offal-eaters!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't disagree at all that there was a measure of "self defense," but I have to ask, as the prosecution did, if you yourself instigate the situation in which you then have to defend yourself --- is it justifiable?

It would depend upon on how one "instigated". The rioters were trying to light a dumpster on fire and apparently push it towards some cop cars. It may have been Rittenhouse, but at least one of the armed people was videoed extinguishing the fire. And there is video of Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher in that parking lot.

It stopping arson, a violent crime, an instigation. That even got the crowd mad. Eventually Rosenbaum and others started to chase Rittenhouse. While Rittenhouse was being chased a gunshot was fired by one rioter (I can look up his name, but he was identified and has been charged) and Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag that probably had a length of heavy chain at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse turned and as Rosenbaum attacked him with his hands raised to take Rittenhouse's gun Rittenhouse fired four shots in quick succession. These facts are supported both by video and witnesses for the prosecution. The witnesses for the prosecution ended up supporting Rittenhouse. At that point I was very sure that the prosecution had lost.

So where did Rittenhouse instigate anything? Preventing others from committing felonies should not be considered instigation in my mind.

 

[Mister Emu]

How hard is it, I wonder, to shoot someone 4 times, when you are "running away?" I mean, when I'm running away, I usually have my back turned to what I'm running from.

Come on now. As the video evidence showed, he ran away from Rosenbaum, twice!, right up to the moment his attacker was close enough to leap at him; part of his hand past the barrel and he may have been grabbing it.

To all the members posting in this thread (on any side of the argument, I don't care), I'd like to ask one question:

How would you feel, if you yourself took the life of another human being?

I have a hard time imagining. I value life as priceless, I don't believe justice has ever been done via a death sentence. I think I would be damaged for the rest of my life if I had to kill someone, but if my life were put into jeopardy, as much as I value it I know I would defend myself too.

 

[Suave]

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.

I just pack heat as an armed escort for my brother who door dashes underserved communities. Does not Canada allow for delivery drivers to carry firearms?.

 

[Stonetree]

Haggis (Scottish Gaelic: taigeis) is a savoury pudding containing sheep's pluck (heart, liver, and lungs), minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and cooked while traditionally encased in the animal's stomach[1] though now an artificial casing is often used instead. According to the 2001 English edition of the Larousse Gastronomique: "Although its description is not immediately appealing, haggis has an excellent nutty texture and delicious savoury flavour".[2]

It is believed that food similar to haggis—perishable offal quickly cooked inside an animal's stomach, all conveniently available after a hunt—was eaten from ancient times.[3][4][5]

 

[Estro Felino]

When Rittenhouse heard "not guilty", he burst out crying.
I wish I was there to hug him. As a mother would.
He is such a sweet boy.
He was in good faith.
He didn't mean to harm anybody.

I am proud of my Italianness knowing his attorney has an Italian surname. His attorneys did a great job.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm from the USA, never left yet. I know what I see just as surely as I can see grass is green.

Ok. Well what you see is your experience, I guess. We all have our own experiences here. I, for one, still see greatness in the US. Not perfection by any means, but greatness.

 

[Watchmen]

To be fair, the news media can do that to people
who don't live here. It's the spotlight fallacy.
Tis up to us to provide an alternative view.
White supremacy in my area is just a loathed
thing that pops up rarely in their tiny noisy public
demonstrations. Haven't had one in a long while.

Apparently the media even does it to people who live here too.