Rittenhouse - innocent or guilty? (1 Viewer)

[NauticalGent]

According to what I have read, he was providing security for a car dealership due to lack of police/State Gov support - at the direction of the mayor. Assuming this is accurate, opens HUGE can of worms...

 

[Jon]

Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right."
- Henry Ford

Unless you are Rittenhouse, in which case whatever you decide you are doomed.

 

[Jon]

According to what I have read, he was providing security for a car dealership due to lack of police/State Gov support - at the direction of the mayor. Assuming this is accurate, opens HUGE can of worms...

My understanding is that he got a text message from someone asking for help to protect the garage. I don't know who that was from, perhaps his friend. Someone had keys so they had access to a building. He was also there to help put out fires (he was a firefighting cadet) and administer first aid to rioters (or anyone else), as he had been on a first-aid course. Earlier that day he was seen cleaning up graffiti. He is just a kid who wants to help out.

If someone had shoved him and he shot them, that would be disproportionate. But what happened was his successful attempt to defend his own life.

 

[NauticalGent]

From what information that is available to me, I am in his corner. The ONLY reason this has turned into a witch-hunt is because a white man killed a black man. If it bleeds, it leads.

I usually simply avoid this kind of "news" because I know what path we are being lead down but for some reason, this one sucked me in.

 

[Jon]

Imagine you are running down the street and it is Halloween. Michael Myers is chasing after you, masked up and looking scary. He catches up with you, and you fall to the floor. He is about to plunge a knife into your neck. You scream, "I don't want to die a criminal. Take me! That damn Rittenhouse!"

 

[Jon]

The ONLY reason this has turned into a witch-hunt is because a white man killed a black man. If it bleeds, it leads.

Let me shed a little more light on it. No black man was killed or shot. Two white men were and one white man injured. But they were BLM protesters. All were convicted felons. Watching them call Rittenhouse a white supremacist on the Left wing media doesn't really mean anything, because they support Critical Race Theory that suggests all whites are racist and white supremacists, and especially those that deny it!

That is why I have put two alternative scenarios earlier in the thread, with the Palestinian and the black guy. My perspective is the same, regardless of ethnicity or conflict. But I doubt the Left wing media would have this same consistency. They seem to change their tune depending on race, gender, and preferred pronoun. Their position is for unequal justice under the law.

 

[AccessBlaster]

According to what I have read, he was providing security for a car dealership due to lack of police/State Gov support - at the direction of the mayor. Assuming this is accurate, opens HUGE can of worms...

I don't understand why a democrat mayor would ask Rittenhouse for security unless I am missing something?

 

[NauticalGent]

I don't understand why a democrat mayor would ask Rittenhouse for security unless I am missing something?

That isn't what I implied. I was trying to convey that the lack of police presence was what the mayor directed.

 

[Jon]

Didn't Trump want to help out with the National Guard, but was turned down? Instead, he let the city burn and asked for money afterwards.

Edit: Looks like the National Guard did arrive. I know they were turned down from many cities, like Portland.

 

[moke123]

I am happy to see any evidence that he was hunting down rioters.

Rittenhouse trial could see video of him talking about shooting people

Prosecutors involved in 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse's case are pushing for a video of him 'wanting to shoot people' to be viewed as evidence during his trial in Wisconsin.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Steve R.]

@moke123: Based on your prior comments concerning the pointing of a weapon, it seems that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting Gaige Grosskreutz. Also, consider that Rittenhouse was on the ground with no escape options and being surrounded by members of the mob attempting to injure him (Rittenhouse), if not kill him. Seems that Rittenhouse would be considered to be in fear of losing his life based on the mob violence.

Gaige Grosskreutz Admits Pointing Gun at Rittenhouse Before Being Shot

Gaige Grosskreutz gave testimony in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial Monday and admitted he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before being shot.

www.breitbart.com

Somebody raises a weapon in my general direction qualifies as an offensive action.

View attachment 83121


Technically that may qualify as grounds to shoot her first.

 

[Jon]

Rittenhouse trial could see video of him talking about shooting people

Prosecutors involved in 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse's case are pushing for a video of him 'wanting to shoot people' to be viewed as evidence during his trial in Wisconsin.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So in other words, you don't have any evidence of Rittenhouse hunting down rioters. And this is my exact point. Instead, the only thing you can find are comments that the judge finds inadmissible.

Here are the judges own words:

“There’s nothing in your case that suggests the defendant was lying in wait to shoot somebody,” Schroeder said, saying the shootings that night were instead “instantaneous actions” that bore no similarity to his comments about wanting to shoot shoplifters.

The truth can be inconvenient.

What would your viewpoint be if Rittenhouse said he will kill Rosenbaum if he catches him alone? Next, Rosenbaum is isolated from the BLM group and Rittenhouse chases after him. Rittenhouse catches up with Rosenbaum and attempts to grab him. Fearing for his life, Rosenbaum turns around and knifes Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse dies. I know what the Left-wing media would say: he got what he deserved. He was a white supremacist who was out to kill people.

 

[Jon]

@moke123: Based on your prior comments concerning the pointing of a weapon, it seems that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting Gaige Grosskreutz. Also, consider that Rittenhouse was on the ground with no escape options and being surrounded by members of the mob attempting to injure him (Rittenhouse), if not kill him. Seems that Rittenhouse would be considered to be in fear of losing his life based on the mob violence.

Gaige Grosskreutz Admits Pointing Gun at Rittenhouse Before Being Shot

Gaige Grosskreutz gave testimony in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial Monday and admitted he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before being shot.

www.breitbart.com

@Steve R. I'm sure you have seen my previous post about consistency. Let us keep the law the same for everybody, regardless of skin colour, gender or political party.

 

[Jon]

I think everybody here should look past your political affiliations. This isn't just about Rittenhouse. It is about precedent. If you are black, you are disproportionately a victim of violent crime. By criminalising Rittenhouse, you will disproportionately criminalise the black community, where the victims would lose their right to self defence.

To my mind, this will be another case where a minor is slandered by the left-wing media, only to win a huge payout in compensation.

Remember this one?

Edit: Just thought of something. Are the surviving attackers up for assault? If not, why not?

 

[Pat Hartman]

If he did not have his gun, might he be dead by now?

He never should have gone to the riot in the first place. He went because he wanted to "help". That is why they are calling him a vigilante, because he was prepared (had his gun) to take justice into his own hands. I hadn't heard about the request from a friend for protection of a business. All I can say is children cannot make rational decisions in cases like this. They are actually too "liberal". They are all about "feelings" rather than reason.

I agree the trial is 100% political. I agree that the people who were shot deserved it. They went to the riot to participate in the destruction. and they threatened Rittenhouse with physical harm so he shot them. It is not like Rittenhouse was hiding the weapon. This is the Darwin principle at work. Stupid people shouldn't breed and these two won't be breeding any more.

I used to think I wouldn't be able to ever point a gun at an attacker and so I never wanted on in the house. I've changed my opinion. I'm pretty sure I could shoot to kill.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Jon, you are assuming that there are any rational people left. Things are so bad that even the formerly rational people are suffering from cognitive dissonance and struggling to justify their hypocritical positions.

 

[AccessBlaster]

He never should have gone to the riot in the first place.

If not Rittenhouse then who? The police were polarized by politics.

 

[Pat Hartman]

If not Rittenhouse then who?

I understand what you are saying. If good people don't stand up to the mob, the mob wins but Rittenhouse was just a boy so my answer is - an adult who understands the ramifications of his actions is who should stand up. This boy, who had no idea what he was getting into, is going to end up in prison for murder because the jury will convict him either because they are part of the woke mob or because they are scared for their own safety. If the jury could convict Chavez even though the coroner said his actions did not cause the death of George Floyd because they were afraid of the mob, why will it be different this time?

A couple of months ago, the local bridge clubs sent out announcements that they would be starting in person bridge again. We've been playing on line for over a year so I was really looking forward to it. I spend way too much time on a computer each day and I'd much rather be at a bridge table with friends where we can chat between hands. So, when I got the bulk mails, I replied ALL explaining why I would not play in person as long as the clubs were imposing the vaccination required rule and why. I also included the fact that I was vaccinated and was not against getting vaccinated if you are old (which bridge players are) but my objection was to the one-size fits all rule, especially when the vaccine was at the time approved for emergency use only. That made me the talk of New England. I got fewer replies than I expected. About half of the replies called me names and the others thanked me for being brave. Despite all the "safety" precautions the clubs promised, in person bridge is about 10% of what it was before COVID and so the clubs are gradually going out of business. If more people had stood up in the beginning when they were first talking about it, there might have been some different outcome.

So, I agree with you. People need to stand up and be counted instead of cowering in a corner afraid of the "rona" or being called a racist.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding the journalist, I think I understand what you are saying. It is if you had a legitimate reason for being somewhere, and someone else didn't, the person who had that reason would be allowed to defend their life, while the other person should let their life be taken, correct?

You have again overstepped the issue. You are conflating "self defense" and "presence at a riot." In the USA, we have freedom to assemble, but if you are looking for "shades of gray" here then the shading is this. Kyle Rittenhouse had no specific reason to be at a known/anticipated riot. Whereas a journalist would have the added reason of being at a newsworthy event and with the added specific purpose of recording said event as part of a news story. The journalist and Kyle Rittenhouse START with equal rights to be someplace that is public property. (As did the persons who were shot, by the way.) However, the journalist has a legit peaceful intent/purpose. Neither Kyle nor his targets had such purpose. Kyle's action was to be armed at some place where violence was expected. The other three also wanted to be armed at some place where violence was expected.

Of the five (Kyle, three shooting victims, and the putative journalist), only one had a potentially peaceful intent. Once we have the moment where Kyle felt at risk for his life, he had the right of self-defense. However, since he was not a uniformed officer but rather represented a rogue element, the OTHER guys ALSO had the right of self-defense. You want to know who was guilty? Everyone (except, of course, the putative journalist).

If you want "guilt" then all four are guilty but only two of them survived. If you want BLAME, then all four have blame. If you want to know how the trial will come out? I'll just wait to see the verdict and the heck with it.

He had a rifle for personal protection. As it happens, it seems if he did not have his rifle, he could already be dead.

NO. EMPHATICALLY NOT. You are STILL evading the point of my dilemma and I will NOT separate the issue. Kyle would NOT have needed a rifle if he had performed one simple act... stay home to avoid a riot. He left home, so wasn't defending his neighborhood. He went out looking for trouble and found it. Three times he found it. It is on the razor's edge of premeditated homicide. He obtained a weapon, traveled to a specific place, and entered the maelstrom. IF that had not been a riot, he would have been guilty of premeditated murder of a random victim. The fact of there being a riot is obfuscation.

Jon, your two "black people in peril" examples are also obfuscation. When it is one victim against many perpetrators, yes - self-defense is allowed. This wasn't a black vs white crime. This wasn't the KKK against a minority. This wasn't a mob against a disabled person. All that kind of question does is obscure the issue.

You keep on asking me what is wrong here. I am reminded of the old question for which the answer is "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like when I see it." Well, in this case, my gut is telling me that Kyle did wrong, self-defense or not, based on his actions leading up to the two deaths. I might not be a lawyer, but I know wrong-doing when I see it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm with Doc on this. Kyle was wrong to be there but that doesn't make him guilty of murder. It makes him guilty of poor judgment which is what we expect of children. That's why we don't let them vote or drive serve in the military or carry concealed weapons. If the state wanted to charge him with some gun crime, I would not object. It is only because the prosecution is charging the boy with murder that there is even a problem because the state has turned this into a persecution rather than a prosecution. Given the evidence, they should never have charged him at all.

I think this happens more frequently than we imagine. A long time ago, i sat on a jury at a criminal trial. By the time we were three hours into the prosecution, I was ready to throw the book at the prosecutor and the "victim" and let the defendant go. He was a criminal and guilty of many things, just not the crime they charged him with. Just to summarize some of the facts, the man was accused of stealing $30 from the "victim" and then running away through three yards jumping over fences as he went. The problem was that the "thief" was in a full leg cast and walking with crutches at the time so the crime could never have occurred as it was described. After we acquitted the defendant, the judge told us what really happened which was a drug deal gone bad and the "victim" got sucked in by the police at the scene and made up some **** and bull story which he would not recant.