Rittenhouse Trial - Not Guilty on All Counts

Really? They saved a 17 year olds life when he was attacked by a 36 year old child molester. It sounds to me like it worked out pretty well. And your response is that something must be wrong with our laws to have allowed that 17 year old to protect himself from his 36 year old aggressor, so we should change them and make sure it doesn't happen again? Where are you trying to go with this?

@eoten: I see you regurgitate all the talking points.

You mean facts. Which of my comments was untrue?

Uh, something that would never had happened hadnt he gone looking for trouble with a rifle in hand...

And your response is that something must be wrong with our laws to have allowed that 17 year old to protect himself from his 36 year old aggressor, so we should change them and make sure it doesn't happen again?

Tbh, I dont care if you change your laws or not. I dont live in the states and I've no interest in living there, so I dont give a rats a** if you change your laws or not. I just find your guns laws stupid and I sure wouldnt want to live in a country where anyone can get a gun with little to no effort. I'm pretty sure in some rare ocasions having a gun in hand saved lives, but I'm also pretty sure that they killed more inocent people than they saved. Just because someone saved himself because he carried a gun with him does not nullify the vast amount of gun crimes comited every year in the states. Way more people are killed with guns than saved. Your country is second place in the "most gun crimes commited per year" only behind Brazil where crime is rampant. The states has more gun violence than 3rd world countries in the middle east ffs!

Yes, gun laws in the US are a problem but not my problem because, fortunately, I dont live there

Judge threw out the gun charge against Kyle because no gun law was broken. Exemptions exist for 17 and 16 year olds to open carry long barrel rifles. There is nothing saying he can't legally open carry a long barrel rifle.

That's a big win because many said this was the one charge the prosecution had the best chance of getting through.

It's not a win for the country when assumed children can carry firearms and use the against others. Not a win at all.

You should send your local representative a grievance regarding military enlistment at 17 while we're at it. lol

That requires parental consent. Did his parents consent to his vigilantism and why is a cop supporting that?

Ah, if he got consent then it's perfectly acceptable? lol

Still didn't answer the second part of that.

Lol, backed yourself into a corner there. And I find no qualms with a 17 year old defending himself against three violent felons.

So vigilantes are okay with you. Got it. Nonetheless, if he wants to run around with weapons then he needs to be treated as an adult in all ways.

Also I'm not in any corner as I never stated I wanted to see 17 year old soldiers, marines, airmen, space cadets, guardsmen, nor sailors. Try harder.

lol.

Self defense is okay with me, no tears shed over here when it's against violent felons (like a child rapist). He is an adult now, maybe he should join the military and serve his community if he's acquitted. Give back and all. (Although infantry is where it's at instead of folks other than grunts!)

Vigilantes. Got it. You don't have to keep repeating it.

You can call him the anti-christ for all I care, or the not-friendly neighborhood watch vigi-man. Either way on either label, will be interesting to see what the jury decides.

You're watching it?

@LJS9502_basic: he doesn't need to ask for parental consent to carry a long barrel rifle according to state law. This is because 16 and 17 year olds can target shoot or hunt without parental consent.

Now if he had a handgun or a short barrel rifle or shotgun it would be a problem. He can't conceal carry at 17. But yeah he can open carry a long barrel rifle and doesn't need to ask mom to do so.

Prosecution to the jury: "Everybody takes a beating some time"

also, "Shooting someone instead of physically defending yourself is reckless homicide..."

LOL

prosecution is a joke, the state is a joke

Prosecution also argued Rittenhouse could have fired warning shots. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "warning shots". They are considered missed shots. People have gotten 20 year sentences for firing warning shots.

What. I find that hard to believe. Is there a link to that?

I haven't had the time to watch, just seeing what's been popping up

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@vl4d_l3nin said:

Prosecution also argued Rittenhouse could have fired warning shots. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "warning shots". They are considered missed shots. People have gotten 20 year sentences for firing warning shots.

What. I find that hard to believe. Is there a link to that?

I haven't had the time to watch, just seeing what's been popping up

I'm at a loss for words. lol Jesus Christ.

Self defense isn't vigilante. Do you even know what vigilante means?

Probably not, considering you didn't even know what murder is and murder is smaller, simpler word.

Normal people don't walk into tense situations with a gun. He wouldn't have needed the self defense excuse if he had not exacerbated a tense situation. He's 100% to blame for that outcome.

He wouldn't have needed the excuse of the mayor of his town, or the governor of their state did their fucking jobs either, would he? It wouldn't have been a tense situation if the media did their fucking jobs and reported the Jacon Blake incident correctly, would he? He wouldn't have had to defend himself of Rosenbaum knew how to act like a grown ass man, would he?

He didn't live in that town and had no business getting involved. But as recent events have shown us, Republicans are no longer the family party, no longer the law and order party, no longer the fiscally conservative party. Actually haven't been fiscally responsible since Reagan TBH but they still trot out those buzzwords to fool those with little education on their policies. Now they have no policies at all.

You seem to think that matters. Rittenhouse was from the area, he worked in Kenosha. He has no less of a right to be there than Rosenbaum. You seem to think Rosenbaum was a local. He only moved there in June of that year to stalk his ex who moved there to get away from him. The ex that he "body slammed" later, according to police.

You're trying to use the fact that Rittenhouse didn't physically live inside the city of Kenosha to claim he had no right being there. It's a disingenuous argument to deflect from your complete lack of understanding on the legality of the situation. And since you're losing this argument as well, you've began talking out your ass about Republicans and Reagan. None of that has anything to do with Rittenhouse, or the BLM riots, does it?

@LJS9502_basic: Kyle worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard, his dad lived in Kenosha, his mom lived 15 mins from Kenosha. Kenosha is a town right next to the state border.

This whole thing is sad. Kyle should have not been out there, but it not illegal for him to be there. Rosenbaum is to blame for all this. How has nobody brought up the fact that he just got out of the hospital for trying to kill himself. Anyone saying Kyle would be alive today without his gun is disingenuous at best. Rosenbaum was going to kill and get killed at all cost. All just sad

The real problem is that riots were not only allowed but encouraged by numerous Dems going all the way to the current Vice President. Had the riots been shut down then this entire situation would have been avoided.

agreed, he was clearly unstable and had 11 charges of child rape against him. He knew his life was over, a guy like that didn't care what happens to him at that point. He used the riot as a way to vent and act out. Much like when you see suicide by cop incidents, he saw a kid with a gun, threatened to kill him, acting like a phychopath calling him the N word, was screaming shoot me shoot me, chases the kid down and lunges for the gun, he didn't care. He wanted to die, nobody would do this but someone wanting to die.

It epitomizes who the left has become. They don't care about blacks, they don't care about perceived injustices by the police. They don't even care about themselves anymore. It's become a "if I can't have everything I want in life, nobody can" mentality. It's about punishing the people they are jealous of and making up excuses to blame somebody else for their own problems.

It's never their fault with these people, but societies. It's the police's fault, it's white peoples fault, it's rich peoples fault, etc. Never their own. The reason the people on here defend and excuse Rosenbaum so much is when they look at him, they see themselves. And when they see Rittenhouse they see everything they hate, someone who disagrees. Someone who wanted to be a productive member of society, and for that, people on the left felt he deserved to at least get beaten.

@warm_gun:

How do you shut down the right to assemble? Why do some parts of the constitution (right to assemble, address issues with government) take priority over others (right to bear arms)?

Think you reversed that.

@mrbojangles25: So close but you're missing a very important word... "peaceably".

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Riots are NOT peaceful. The GF riots were violent and chaotic. 25 people died in the name of "justice". Millions in damages. Private businesses destroyed. None of the riots have been peaceful or even mostly peaceful and therefore should have been shut down. Had the police done their F**KING jobs.... this trial wouldn't have even happened.

Right, because when three wrongs don’t make a right…..a fourth one surely will!

👍🏼🙄

Um...

But you're still forgetting the fact Rittenhouse didn't go there looking for trouble, the rioters did. And when those people above failed to do their jobs to protect the city or it's people, it forced individuals into a situation where they had to protect themselves. Rittenhouse's situation is textbook self defense. Nothing gave Rosenbaum the right to try to kill Rittenhouse. Every law written protects Rittenhouse's right to protect his life.

The fact Rosenbaum and Huber are heros to people like you speaks a lot about how far down the toilet the left has gone.

Assemble? Is burning, looting, and murdering people covered under the right to assemble? I don't think you have any clue what so ever what the constitution says or permits. You're trying to defend malicious, criminal acts of violence with that?

I don’t dispute Rittenhouse’s right to self-defense….I’ve stated that repeatedly. In legal determinations, I believe he’s probably going to beat the hardest charges.

The failure of the police and politicians in this instance forced no one to do anything that placed them into a situation of danger; Rittenhouse willingly went there when he had the foresight and option not to. And that, to me, is the true measure of taking means to protect oneself and living responsibly. It’s why I won’t walk down a dark, seedy looking alley in a sketchy, crime-infested neighborhood in the middle of the night. But we’ve been over this, the greater discretion of his choice is irrelevant to you, fine. I’d only hope if you were (or are) a parent, you’d have the better judgement to encourage your child not to pick up a rifle and travel to an area where people are so enraged they’re rioting. Perhaps a bit of real personal investment and risk would tear off your partisan goggles that are blinding you, and many others, from basic common sense and personal responsibility simply to be able to enable the justification of the destruction of the people you so hate.

If he gets acquitted (and he probably will), it’s going to do nothing but encourage more individuals to march to open warfare in the streets, under the guise of “self-defense“, to be sorted out by the courts by technicalities…..all the while cheered on or booed by those on the respective sides of the isle.

It’s just amazing to me how tribalism has completely robbed people of their common sense.

Again, you're acting like Rittenhouse is the only one who had the option to stay home. You're trying to apply nefariousness to someone putting out fires and rendering medical assistance while excusing people who went there to literally burn and loot. Rittenhouse had no less of a right to be there than anybody else.

Try applying some personal responsibility to the grown men of the situation, like Rosenbaum for a change.

An acquittal changes nothing. Self defense has always been and will always be legal. This trial isn't necessary to reaffirm that. You seem like you want people like Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz to feel they can abuse people with impunity by punishing those who fight back. Self defense isn't supposed to be sorted out in courts. There's no evidence to even support this matter going to trial outside of political implications which have no place in a court room. Even you are arguing on the basis of political implications. People's rights should not be determined by what political factions deep politically appropriate.

The fact it was even brought to trial was done so to try to punish Rittenhouse, and anyone else who dares to defend themselves from bullies like Rosenbaum.

No, I'm not trying to apply nefariousness to someone putting out fires and rendering medical assistance, I'm applying stupidity to one who carries a rifle he had no authority to use into absolute chaos with people out of their minds with anger in order to do so. Which is exactly what it was, and will remain, despite the court's jurisprudence or your continual attempts to excuse it in such framework of legal myopia.

If I'm to apply some personal responsibility to Rosenbaum and the others in this situation, in the discussion of lives taken, it will be in the context of the lethal potential they brought to bear that resulted in it. And due to that, I will look firstly at the people who raised that ceiling to such potential in the introduction of lethality, regardless of the actions of those that brought it to its realization.

Who was that? Rittenhouse. No one else, and for no greater reason you can provide me other than "it was his right". A rationale that is none at all when people are dead. The principle is not enough.

I don't care about the rioters. My displeasure with Rittenhouse's discretion isn't an attempt to absolve these individuals whatsoever, I hold no ideological allegiance to their cause, I am no fan of the Left, I do not agree with the riots, and the rioters should be tossed in prison for being dimwits. You have no grounds to accuse me of supporting these individuals aside appeals to the corollary simply by virtue of argument.

You have not answered my question, btw.

I wonder how Rittenhouse slept last night? Regardless what people think will happen, he's gotta be sweating.

@Solaryellow: Probably didn't sleep at all. I know I wouldn't be able to!

Jury dismissed for the day...again

Now he's gotta do it again