Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

[Subduction Zone]

The videos don't tell the whole story or give the full context, though. Still, I do think familiarizing oneself with the videos as part of the larger case is crucial if one wishes to comment on it or form an informed opinion.

The videos alone do tell quite a bit of the story, but more came out. And overall it did seem to appear to support Rittenhouse. Though one can argue about his motives what really matters are his actions that night. Between testimony, photos, and videos, it is apparent that Rittenhouse was trying to minimize the damage done by rioters. He could have been the one that extinguished a dumpster fire that appears to have been started by Rosenbaum. At any rate that was what appears to have been the event that caused Rosenbaum and others to begin to chase Rittenhouse. From there on the videos are the clear evidence that caused the jury to vote not guilty.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I mean they do really give the full context ever since the FBI video was released.

This was one of the details I read that the videos may not show clearly:

Grosskreutz testified on November 8 that when he approached Rittenhouse and put his hands in the air, he believed he saw Rittenhouse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap,_rack,_bang his rifle, which to Grosskreutz "meant that [Rittenhouse] pulled the trigger while [Grosskreutz'] hands were in the air, but the gun didn't fire", and that Rittenhouse "wasn't accepting [Grosskreutz'] surrender";https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#cite_note-120 he then decided to "close the distance" to Rittenhouse, to employ "non-lethal" methods of either "wrestling the gun" or "detaining" Rittenhouse. He further testified that he was "trying to preserve [his] own life" but "was never trying to kill" Rittenhouse,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#cite_note-:20-7 and that he moved closer to Rittenhouse, unintentionally pointing his handgun at Rittenhouse, after-which Rittenhouse shot him.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#cite_note-Tarm-78

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

If it is true that Rittenhouse reloaded his gun while pointing it at Grosskreutz, then I'm not sure how the latter could have reacted other than to expect that Rittenhouse was intent on shooting him. Correct or not, the expectation seems reasonable to me in such a situation.

The main issue is that some of the details seem unclear, hence my view that videos alone aren't enough to come to a definite conclusion on the whole thing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The videos alone do tell quite a bit of the story, but more came out. And overall it did seem to appear to support Rittenhouse. Though one can argue about his motives what really matters are his actions that night. Between testimony, photos, and videos, it is apparent that Rittenhouse was trying to minimize the damage done by rioters. He could have been the one that extinguished a dumpster fire that appears to have been started by Rosenbaum. At any rate that was what appears to have been the event that caused Rosenbaum and others to begin to chase Rittenhouse. From there on the videos are the clear evidence that caused the jury to vote not guilty.

As I said, I don't know enough about the case to have a definite opinion one way or the other, but what I do believe--especially as a non-American who is foreign to lax gun laws--is that the idea of a 17-year-old taking a rifle to a venue of unrest and acting as an armed vigilante is beyond absurd. It is the kind of situation that has a lot of potential to be a minefield of armed conflict.

Rittenhouse's case is merely a product of (in my opinion) faulty gun laws; that would still be an issue even if he had been convicted of all charges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was one of the details I read that the videos may not show clearly:



Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

If it is true that Rittenhouse reloaded his gun while pointing it at Grosskreutz, then I'm not sure how the latter could have reacted other than to expect that Rittenhouse was intent on shooting him. Correct or not, the expectation seems reasonable to me in such a situation.

The main issue is that some of the details seem unclear, hence my view that videos alone aren't enough to come to a definite conclusion on the whole thing.

Grosskreutz testimony does not reflect how Rittenhouse reacted to others. When people backed off he ignored them. And Grosskreutz was likely armed illegally. He did not have a concealed weapon permit for a handgun. He had been refused one more than once due to past charges of domestic violence. Why wasn't he charged for carrying a handgun? They have charged the person that fired the first shot. He did not appear to be able to be a witness. And Grosskreutz on the stand did support quite a bit of Rittenhouse's story. I may have to watch the video of him again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, I don't know enough about the case to have a definite opinion one way or the other, but what I do believe--especially as a non-American who is foreign to lax gun laws--is that the idea of a 17-year-old taking a rifle to a venue of unrest and acting as an armed vigilante is beyond absurd. It is the kind of situation that has a lot of potential to be a minefield of armed conflict.

Rittenhouse's case is merely a product of (in my opinion) faulty gun laws; that would still be an issue even if he had been convicted of all charges.

I agree with that. I would change the gun laws if I could. But he had to be charged with the gun laws that we have here. Not the ones that we wish that we had. The prosecution did not do that.

Personally I think that there should be a law banning anyone from bringing in any weapons to an area of unrest.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Grosskreutz testimony does not reflect how Rittenhouse reacted to others. When people backed off he ignored them. And Grosskreutz was likely armed illegally. He did not have a concealed weapon permit for a handgun. He had been refused one more than once due to past charges of domestic violence. Why wasn't he charged for carrying a handgun? They have charged the person that fired the first shot. He did not appear to be able to be a witness. And Grosskreutz on the stand did support quite a bit of Rittenhouse's story. I may have to watch the video of him again.

The whole situation sounds like a mess exacerbated by nervousness, adrenaline, and easy access to firearms... hence my belief that the core issue is the gun laws of the U.S. regardless of the verdict in this trial.

Does illegally carrying a gun automatically
negate someone's right to charge someone else with assaulting them, though? There were people trying to justify what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd by citing the latter's legal record, but someone's law violations don't necessarily justify violations against them either.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If Rittenhouse's testimonial is to be believed, he was at that car dealership to work illegally as a paid security guard:


Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

In Wisconsin, security guards are required to be licensed. A special permit is required for a security guard to be armed.

So you are worried about an illegal activity by a kid trying to do good in the world but not the illegal activity of felons traveling there to riot?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I agree with that. I would change the gun laws if I could. But he had to be charged with the gun laws that we have here. Not the ones that we wish that we had. The prosecution did not do that.

Personally I think that there should be a law banning anyone from bringing in any weapons to an area of unrest.

That's ridiculous. If I have to drive through a town where there's " unrest" that's exactly when I need protection.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's ridiculous. If I have to drive through a town where there's " unrest" that's exactly when I need protection.

Rittenhouse didn't have to be at the site of the unrest with a rifle, though. He himself said he was there specifically to "protect property" and help injured people. He was acting as a vigilante.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Rittenhouse didn't have to be at the site of the unrest with a rifle, though. He himself said he was there specifically to "protect property" and help injured people. He was acting as a vigilante.

We need more people willing to do just that. When people are being shipped in to burn your town, why not ship some in the stop them? The police were overwhelmed, help was needed and in this case justice was finally done. I hope it makes some people think twice about rioting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We need more people willing to do just that. When people are being shipped in to burn your town, why not ship some in the stop them? The police were overwhelmed, help was needed and in this case justice was finally done. I hope it makes some people think twice about rioting.

You need more people willing to act as law enforcement without sufficient professional training? That doesn't sound like a great idea, especially not when the armed people without sufficient training are also minors (as Rittenhouse was at the time).

If the police were overwhelmed, then perhaps the state should look into ways to bolster their numbers and/or ability to defuse genuine threats to safety without the aid of armed civilians so that situations like the one in question don't keep arising.

Edit: Also, rioting per se isn't grounds for killing someone. Taking a life requires extraordinary justification, so unless the rioting threatens someone's life, it's not a reason to kill people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ridiculous. If I have to drive through a town where there's " unrest" that's exactly when I need protection.

Then avoid that part of town.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are worried about an illegal activity by a kid trying to do good in the world but not the illegal activity of felons traveling there to riot?

You seem to have a very warped view of Rittenhouse and the world in general.

 

[suncowiam]

Clearly, you don't know what an assault rifle is.
(He didn't have one.)

I know gun nuts love to obsfucate between a common rifle and an assault rifle as if that was the core argument.

You knew very well that wasn't the argument but go ahead and deflect.

What really is the difference between any guns when one is armed and the other is not?

He could have had a hand gun as far as I cared. The fact that US allows an untrained armed individual with little to no experience to operate weapons is the real issue here.

What I know is if he wasn't there pretending to be a peace keeper, two people wouldn't be dead. The two people that died has their own faults but they should not have been killed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know gun nuts love to obsfucate....

I'm not the one calling something by a misleading name.
Anti-gun nuts do love to use incorrect descriptions
in order to make things sound more frightening.

 

[John53]

I'm not the one calling something by a misleading name.
Anti-gun nuts do love to use incorrect descriptions
in order to make things sound more frightening.

Assault rifle is more frightening than assault weapon how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assault rifle is more frightening than assault weapon how?

An "assault weapon" is a term that appears to have been invented by anti-gun people in the US. We had an "assault weapon" ban that was based more upon what a gun looked like than anything else. In other words it was just a feel good law that really did not solve any problems.

An assault rifle is a rifle that can switch between fully automatic (what many of us would call a machine gun) and a semi automatic. They can be very scary, but on full automatic are notoriously inaccurate. But in a crowd where one is not really aiming they can hit a lot of people in a very short period of time. Those are highly regulated in the US. One can still get a license for them but it is not easy and it is not cheap.

 

[John53]

An "assault weapon" is a term that appears to have been invented by anti-gun people in the US. We had an "assault weapon" ban that was based more upon what a gun looked like than anything else. In other words it was just a feel good law that really did not solve any problems.

An assault rifle is a rifle that can switch between fully automatic (what many of us would call a machine gun) and a semi automatic. They can be very scary, but on full automatic are notoriously inaccurate. But in a crowd where one is not really aiming they can hit a lot of people in a very short period of time. Those are highly regulated in the US. One can still get a license for them but it is not easy and it is not cheap.

Not arguing any of that, just wondering how calling a gun an assault rifle makes it scarier than calling it an assault weapon.

 

[Shaul]

Rittenhouse didn't have to be at the site of the unrest with a rifle, though. He himself said he was there specifically to "protect property" and help injured people. He was acting as a vigilante.

Protecting people and property doesn’t make someone a vigilante.

 

[We Never Know]

Assault rifle is more frightening than assault weapon how?

A shotgun isn't considered a rifle.
However this one I would call an assault weapon.