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

[Subduction Zone]

Inadequate parental supervision.
Untrained kid with a rifle in that situation...a recipe for carnage.

It was not his gun that he used if I remember correctly. I wonder if there was any way to charge the people that armed him?

 

[ChristineM]

It's currently undecided if it was legal for him to carry a gun or not, as I understand it. We'll see.

And i understand the law there is you must be 18 years old to be licensed to carry a gun. He is 17, i.e. illegal. There is no indecision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And i understand the law there is you must be 18 years old to be licensed to carry a gun. He is 17, i.e. illegal. There is no indecision.

It is more complex than that. And I would get him for more than that. But I don't think that they can convict for murder. He should be liable for some sort of reckless endangerment charges. And those are not slap on the wrist sentences. What worries me is that the prosecution may have blown the ability to do that even.

 

[ChristineM]

Again.
I hope it never happens that you have to fight your way out of such an event.

You will never survive for thinking killing an attacker has some right to live.
They dont.
Anyone who attackes anyone with the intent to kill, forfeited his right to live.
period.

You have no idea what i have been through so don't guess. As i have said previously on this thread, 3 times, if i had that notion i would have killed, and 3 times i didn't.

A child with a gun in an area of civil unrest is a recipe for disaster and guess what. He killed 2 people. That is fact.

 

[Estro Felino]

From the trial:

Prosecutor: What if Rosenbaum had taken your gun?
Rittenhouse : if Rosenbaum had taken my gun, he would have used it against me.
Prosecutor: but you could have run
You were running away from him


I am shocked, guys.
The accuse is doing anything to disprove what is evident in a footage. With non juridical arguments.

We are speaking of an adult who was running at the speed of the light with the clear intention of harming a boy.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually it does make a difference. People who are breaking the law still have right to life. That is why if Rittenhouse had targeted the rioters he would have been guilty of murder. No problem. Unfortunately some of the rioters tried to attack him. He may have broken the law by being there with that gun. And carrying a gun in such a situation may be illegal (it should be in my opinion). But he did not attack first. He did not even fire first, though the first gunshot did not come from any of his attackers.

Before the event he as photographed carrying a fire extinguisher in the area. He may have been trying to put out fires started by the rioters. When the videos of him start he was running from a group of rioters and was trapped among some cars. That was when the first shot rang out He was then attacked by Rosenbaum, who was unarmed. but when one is part of an armed mob one is effectively armed and he shot him. He stopped for a while, but was chased again and he ran. One person caught up to him hitting him on the head and knocking him down. Another kicked his as he ran over and past him. The third struck him on the head with the edge of his skateboard and was getting read to do some more damage. He was shot and died. Another person came up, with a hand gun, at first it looked like he was going to point it away but then it swung back at Kyle. He shot him and only ruined his arm.

The third person that was shot admitted that he pointed his gun at Kyle while he was on the ground in trial yesterday.

It is looking real bad for the prosecution.

I did not like the murder charge from the start. It is excessive. There were lesser charges that they could have filed, ones that still would have resulted in years of prison time, but it is probably too late. I do not like politically or emotionally based trials. The charges are often excessive and far too often the guilty part gets off without any punishment.

It makes no difference to the fact that he killed people... That is fact.

All the cop outs and excuses will be heard by the court. He is in court because he killed 2 people.


.

 

[ChristineM]

I disciplined my children.
I wacked their bums when they stole, or threw something at a tv or so.
They learned to respect people, police, and propperty.
They never broke the law so far, and they are well ballanced citizens.
If ever they are killed because they tried to rape a woman, or tried to shoot at the police, or someone else shot them in self defence, ...
And I think my child are still an inocent being!!
I am in such a case in denial of the facts, and a fool!

You see, thats why I disciplined my children from their youth.
So they dont turn out to become Antifa terrorists, or BLM fools!

My children are not the rubbish walking in streets to loot and destroy.
They work for their living.

Do you know how many men on deathrow blames their parents, especially their mothers, fo not disciplining them when they threw tantrums when small, stealing, and assault?
They hate their parents for not giving discipline when they should have received a wack or two.
Yet the Leftist liberal snowflakes think it is fine to look a3way, hoping a misbehaved child might change if you talk, talk, talk.

Sorry, my kids are 36, 33 and 26 and they never had problems with the law.
Andso did I, and guess what, I was disciplined with a belt on my bum, 6 shots, when I misbehaved, and I saw the difference of my friends who were not.
They turned out as hooligans too.
Thanks Dad, Mom!

I dont really carw about your straw men so wont bother answering
However
Yet uou would still bare the loss of your child like a good parent would.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It makes no difference to the fact that he killed people... That is fact.

All the cop outs and excuses will be heard by the court. He is in court because he killed 2 people.


.

I'm concerned they set the trial up as "all or nothing" though. Life in prison, or "not guilty". If that truly is the case, he probably will be found "not guilty".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It makes no difference to the fact that he killed people... That is fact.

All the cop outs and excuses will be heard by the court. He is in court because he killed 2 people.


.

Yes, he killed two people. And it could have been avoided. But in a case like this the law can see that what the people did in attacking Rittenhouse would have justified their shootings. He will beat those charges. He could still be charged, and he should be. But murder will not fly.

The third person shot who was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution was a better witness for the defense. So was a person that was right behind Rosenbaum. He supported the account of the defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm concerned they set the trial up as "all or nothing" though. Life in prison, or "not guilty". If that truly is the case, he probably will be found "not guilty".

I think that it was motivated by emotion and politics. We have seen this before. An person portrayed in an unpopular way is charged to make people feel better. Feel better lawsuits tend to fail. One has to convince a jury of 12 and there will usually be a few rational people in such a group.

 

[oldbadger]

If anyone outside of the USA were to listen to the US cable media companies, one would think that the whites, especially the conservatists, are the worlds' greatest racists and haters of liberalism.

Wrong......... which one of us would think that all US conservatives are racists?
Which of us would marry racism and anti-liberalism together?

But we do see and hear news of so many outrageous killings, murders and beatings of black people by police.... sure.

As it is with all the huge strawmen, politicians like to construct to suit their bias,

Yeah....... don't they, though?

......and the leftist socialist communist media outlets ..............

Oh dear!.... Stop you there....! This looks like an extreme rightist rant..........
Now, we foreigners HAVE heard about them....

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm concerned they set the trial up as "all or nothing" though. Life in prison, or "not guilty". If that truly is the case, he probably will be found "not guilty".

Doing some more Googling though, it does appear that if he beats the murder charges, he may face other charges still, in the case. Though some articles word it weirdly, so I'm not sure exactly how things work on this case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doing some more Googling though, it does appear that if he beats the murder charges, he may face other charges still, in the case. Though some articles word it weirdly, so I'm not sure exactly how things work on this case.

What I saw from his charges is that his reckless endangerment charges are tied to those that were attacking him. That was a very foolish tactic on the part of the prosecution. It is not reckless endangerment if one's excuse for the particular person involved is self defense.

 

[Aštra’el]

A child with a gun in an area of civil unrest is a recipe for disaster

Seventeen years of age is not “a child”.

 

[ChristineM]

It is more complex than that. And I would get him for more than that. But I don't think that they can convict for murder. He should be liable for some sort of reckless endangerment charges. And those are not slap on the wrist sentences. What worries me is that the prosecution may have blown the ability to do that even.

Like i have said from the beginning of this thread and several people have jumped down my throat for it... There is no denying that he killed 2 people, how the law considers his actions is down to the court to decide

 

[ChristineM]

Seventeen years of age is not “a child”.

It certainly is not a responsible adult. It is a teenager and as a parent i have teenage CHILDREN.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm concerned they set the trial up as "all or nothing" though. Life in prison, or "not guilty". If that truly is the case, he probably will be found "not guilty".

We will just have to see

 

[ChristineM]

What I saw from his charges is that his reckless endangerment charges are tied to those that were attacking him. That was a very foolish tactic on the part of the prosecution. It is not reckless endangerment if one's excuse for the particular person involved is self defense.

As i said, the court will decide

 

[Subduction Zone]

As i said, the court will decide

Okay. What I am not pleased with is over charging him, as it appears that they have done, is apt to lead him getting away without punishment. I am not happy about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hope it never happens to you.
I was in war conflict, and believe me, you will shoot to survive.

Then that's a difference between you and Rittenhouse: he wasn't a soldier; he was a vigilante. He had no legitimate reason to be at the protest in the first place.

From your posts in the thread it seems like the racism of what Rittenhouse was doing really resonates with you, so this will probably fall on deaf ears, but for anyone else: while the details of what happened are important for the criminal trial, every now and then step back from those details and consider the big picture: why did Rittenhouse decide to come to Kenosha at all? Why did he decide to insert himself into a situation? Do you want vigilante groups like Rittenhouse's to continue to insert themselves into - and worsen the consequences of - political protest?