Kyle Rittenhouse has been found innocent of all charges. I assume that the rest of the day will be completely taken up with hysterical takes about how this (a) proves that white people can wantonly kill anyone they want and pay no penalty, or (b) finally puts an end to a sham trial that only happened in the first place because of the demands of lefty gun control nuts.
Take your pick.
Can't wait for people to bring more guns to public gatherings. After all, as long as you kill the first batch of people, who's to say that you didn't "fear for your life" when others confront you for your actions and you shoot at them too?
*Disclaimer: Self-defense claims may not work for non-white people.
Or even all white people, in the case of Michael Reinohl, who unlike Rittenhouse never got his day in court. William Barr made sure of that.
So you thin the jury got it wrong? I don't see how they could have convicted him. Not that I'm celebrating the outcome or making Rittenhouse out to be a hero.
Yep. The jury got it wrong. Like the prosecution said, you can't claim self-defense for something you yourself instigated.
But check back with me in a few years, when shootouts become more commonplace as a way to eliminate any potential witnesses, and when it becomes impossible to hold anyone to account for murders in the public sphere. After all, everybody thinks of themselves as "the good guy with the gun" and when all others are dead... who's left to disprove it?
The jury may have a better idea of his guilt than you do. Jus' sayin'.
A Kenosha County jury, working from that judge's instructions? Nah.
My only regret is Mark Belling is too brain damaged from his stroke to revel in Rittenhouse's acquittal
Same with OJ, right?
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-rittenhouse-verdict-shouldnt
How, exactly, did Ritterhouse instigate the confrontation with Rosenbaum?
Note: Legally open carrying a weapon is not legally instigation.
LOL.
Don't forget: William G. Barr, unlike you & I, was honored by a group of bishops for his Christlike qualities, so I'm sure he must have done the right thing.
Did Pres. Fr. Jenkins give Willy his blessing, same as he gave it to Associate Supreme Amy Crate n' Barrel?
The jury got it wrong. But not by a huge margin. The problem wasn't the jury or even that right wing crank of a judge. The problem is the absurdly permissive nature of self-defense law in the US, and the accompanying laxity of firearms regulations.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey were home and didn't even shoot. They still had the hassle of a plea bargain and pardon.
This'll teach them: open fire and walk.
Well, they might have won if they had gone to trial. I doubt that Rittenhouse was offered much in the way of plea.
I haven't seen a post on the jury instruction, but there would have been one about the elements of lethal force in self defense.
Wisconsin law must say that if someone comes at you, unarmed, and you are in fear, you can kill them.
I mean, that's what happened. Of course, what also happened is he went out in public as a vigilante. I mean, he's not even from Kenosha, its not like he had a gun at his house along the parade route.
Its also true that an African American who did the same thing would have been gunned down on the spot, but that wasn't the legal case here so while I am sure talking heads will mention it its not relevant.
This is what all the gun nuts want, and they got it. But its not just this case. You can't have all the non-existent half-assed limitations on firearms we have in this country and not have this result.
I don't know if our swedish poster is a lawyer, but there is probably no way that Swedish law allows you to open carry in the first place, nor would it allow lethal self defense in response to unarmed force.
You realize that one of the guys Rittenhouse shot pulled a gun on him, right?
I want to hear your update of Foster the People's "Pumped Up Kicks", dedicated to the Rittenhouse Winner.
Indeed, the third guy. Hindsight is always great, but a prosecutorial decision might have been to not charge on the third guy and stick with the two unarmed guys shot first.
You don't have to be armed with a gun to pose a threat. Hitting someone with a skateboard or (especially) trying to take away their gun can be considered a deadly threat.
When the Gang Turned Black, Charlie Kelly got murdered by the cops for playing with a toy train engine.
>>You realize that one of the guys Rittenhouse shot pulled a gun on him, right?<<
So a “good guy with a gun” should mind their own business cause if the bad guy guns you down it will just be self defense.
Actually, the best guy with a gun might well do just that. I recall when Gabby Giffords was shot, there were two men in the shopping center parking lot who had concealed carry permits & their guns with them, but not wanting to be mistook for the, or another, offensive threat, they decided to get Loughner without aid of their weapons.
recently in CO,
https://www.cpr.org/2021/11/08/olde-town-arvada-police-shooting-no-charges/
cop shot the 'good guy with a gun' who'd just shot the original shooter. Unfortunately the cop thought the good guy was the shooter..
Maybe that's too many guns.
Yeah, that guy should have shot Rittenhouse instead of trying to talk him down.
Same predictable comments every time.
No, it's not true if Rittenhouse were African American he would have been gunned down on the spot.
It's like the NFAC doesn't exist--a heavily armed group of black men who have gone to numerous protests. The only NFAC member shot was by one of their own, by accident, even after their leader was arrested, very much alive, for pointing his gun at cops.
And there was this case same day as Rittenhouse:
https://t.co/vWPFFLEfrX?amp=1
Keep ignoring reality or get a new playbook.
Cryin' Kyle's future, I rather suspect, is going to involve future law enforcement interaction. I don't think someone like that, with the friends he now has, is done making awful news.
Come back in five years and check in.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the next time you see him in the news it will be him getting a job in “law enforcement”.
Nah... he's being groomed for a future as a politician.
I hear Wheels Cawthorn, Matt GOATSE, & Paul Gosar are fighting to hiring Ky.
It had better not be in DC.
Trumpian hero will have lots of job opportunities. I’m guessing law enforcement as it provides more opportunities for use of deadly force. For the time being, at least.
He can come to Mikwaukee & be the MPD's next gen John Balcerczak & Joe Gabrish.
The gun #$%&!'s are going to be out in force tonight. Be careful. Do not confront them. Do not look at them cross-eyed. Do not be a person of color. They will shoot you in self defense.
Are lefties having any riots tonight?
There's been some chatter from the Boogaloo Bois, I would not be surprised to see another false-flag like the police station shootings or the Oakland murder.
Is that what you are asking?
Yes, exactly. Kind of like the fake moon landing.
In case you are unaware the Oakland murder was a false flag boogaloo killing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
Or perhaps you actually do think the moon landings were fake?
Not sure about that, but we know Roswell was fake, since if had been real, Atticus's president would have blabbed about it.
Who is my president?
Donald John Trump, Sr. (Q - FL).
You obviously don’t know me very well. I hate Trump.
America's trigger happy vigilantes will be hoping civil rights advocates and police reform protesters will be out protesting tonight, but remaining in their homes might be the better response.
Are righties having any more murder safaris tonight?
It’s legal now, so why not?
Agree again. The trial totally sets the precedent that murder safaris are legal.
Only in your dreams.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-rittenhouse-verdict-shouldnt
OK, I read the jury instructions. All you need is a reasonable fear of "imminent death or great bodily harm"
I'm not going to pull the Wisconsin cases but there would have been one or more on what "great bodily harm" is as opposed to, I don't know, incidental bodily harm?
Imminent death would have covered the guy who pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, but the whole case is whether you can just shoot someone who you think is going to beat you up.
I mean, its not as if there is any doubt that millions of people in this country think its perfectly fine to shoot someone rather than get in a fight with them or retreat.
By the way, another jury instruction was that there was no duty to retreat.
Exactly. You can certainly debate the merits of the law. But, between the evidence, the jury instructions and the law being what it is, I don't see how there's any way the jury could find him guilty. And I think they did take their job seriously. they obviously wanted to get it right considering they deliberated for four days.
Just because you got it right according to the law doesn't mean you delivered justice. That jury and judge will be responsible for the next time Rittenhouse goes on a murder safari.
Why? They didn't make the laws. If anyone is responsible in that case it would be the state legislators.
I will alert Robin Vos that you have questioned his wisdom.
When the law is an ass a jury has an ethical obligation to practice jury nullification and do the right thing.
Much less, I suppose, a duty not to go looking for trouble ….
It proves that when a state has open carry laws any right winger can go to a liberal protest armed with assault rifles at the ready and kill anyone who they think is threatening in the name of self defense. We’ll see if the Supreme Court makes the entire country open carry. If so, the “militia” referred to in the Second Amendment will come to mean right wing Trumpian militias with leave to shoot at will.
If the guys that were shot wouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse it would be a different story. No one is suggesting you can walk up to a crowd and start shooting people. Obviously that is not the case.
If I see someone shoot a person it is best that I not try to heroically try to stop them because if I do they can kill me in self defense and that will be legal.
What is being said here is that a black man with an assault rifle can go to a white power rally and act as menacing as he wants. Then, if someone tries to confront him he is free to kill them. Right?
What's your definition of confront? If someone tries to take his gun, hit him with a skateboard, or pull their own gun on him, yes, of course the black man can defend himself and shoot them. (At least in Wisconsin.)
Tell that to the Milwaukee Police Association.
“He yelled at me and called me names and then I thought he was reacting for a gun so I defended myself”.
Except my opinion is that it wouldn’t work out that way for a non-Trumpian.
I fully expect that if Trump is “President” again Rittenhouse will receive the Presidential Medal Of Freedom. Let me know if you think I’m wrong about that.
So much for the "good guy with a gun" argument. Even if you see someone shoot someone else, you can't do anything about it. Good guy with a gun Grosskreutz tried to stop Rittenhouse, but as we saw today, that's totally pointless because the killer has presumptive rights to keep on killing.
Rittenhouse was the good guy with the gun. It certainly wasn’t the rioters.
The Ameritrumpian Republic, 2025, turned into Rwanda, 1994, so quickly I didn't know what to do.
The best take was Farhad Manjoo's point that "self-defense" in this case was from Rittenhouse's own gun. He was afraid someone would take it and shoot him. Combine that with "Stand Your Ground" and The Purge is pretty much on.
I'm not going to second guess the jury, but if reporting is to be believed, there were only two injuries during the Kenosha protests beyond the two murders and one injury inflicted by Rittenhouse.
It's clear whatever the hell he thought he was doing needs to be stopped.
What are you talking about? Each of the three people shot attacked Rittenhouse. One of them had a gun of his own.
You talking to me?
What am I talking about?
Gee, maybe I'm talking about what Rittenhouse himself said.
--
Rittenhouse’s main worry was his own firearm. As [the unarmed] Rosenbaum closed in, Rittenhouse said it became clear to him that Rosenbaum wanted to take the rifle — and if he got it, Rittenhouse said, he would have “killed me with it and probably killed more people.” Rittenhouse fired four shots in quick succession, killing Rosenbaum, just as he said it seemed that Rosenbaum lunged for the weapon.
--
So it's not a reasonable fear to think that someone could take your gun and use it against you?
Uh, read what the actual law says as well as instructions to the jury. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that he came to town to at least provoke a response. At the very least. But the instructions to the jury was that they couldn't take that into account. No matter how provocative he was, up to and including appearing he was looking for someone to shoot. Get your facts straight.
Exactly. It’s irrelevant.
This is such an astonishingly irrelevant comment that I have to think you've been drinking. Explain in detail, please, how what you just said addresses anything in the comment you're replying to.
Context matters. Rosenblum also threatened to kill Rittenhouse, and a member of the group with Rosenblum fired a gun. Rittenhouse tried to run away, but Rosenblum and several others chased him. Rosenblum lunged after Rittenhouse had fallen to the ground.
I hope you're confronted with someone with a gun, Atticus.
Tough, but fair.
A certain number of Americans will interpret this as a license to go hunting for humans they don't like.
Forget the legalities of "self defense" and anything else the kid's lawyers (paid for by the right) and an apparent somewhat sympathetic judges actions. Some of our fellow citizens will see this as giving them the right to hunt down and kill people they don't like -- and they're absolutely correct in seeing the decision in those terms.
Damn this damnable country.
Sounds like you should find a new home if you hate this one so much. And how do you think acting in self defense is the same as hunting down and killing people they don't like?
You're really missing the points here, dude.
No.
What the right wants is the right for vigilante justice. We will see more in a minute on the Georgia case.
Its not like we don't have enough gun crime, and what the NRA manages to keep a lid on is virtually all of it is some form of "vigilante justice." There is really not any meaningful distinction between the Rittenhouse case and some guy getting drunk at a bar and going to the car for a gun and shootings between people who know each other.
Virtually all of it involves lethal force in response to non-lethal threats.
But that is what the gun nuts want. Look if you have a gun, and you think you need it for self defense, don't BS me with vague arguments, you don't want to be John Wick, you want to shoot the person maybe breaking into your house and ask questions later.
If you want to carry it around for crissakes where in the world are you going? Somalia?
Without a duty to retreat, and without a duty to not carry guns around in the first place its all sadly inevitable.
The follow on tragedy is that liberals won't really react to this with the necessary political will to change the underlying laws.
Right now self defense is so broadly defined that when the gun nuts go "its better to be tried by 12 then buried by 6" they are absolutely right under the laws of most of this country.
The left is powerless to change the rules right now. The political structure has always tilled in favor of the slavers and their descendants and now they have leveraged that power to the max so that we cannot stop what is happening.
The second Ammendment is all about the right to keep slave patrols. That's why it was written the way it was; they weren't talking about militias whose purpose was to defend the 'State' from external enemies; they were talking about slave patrols whose purpose was to 'defend' the 'State' from supposed internal enemies.
At this point, we must remember the words of Frank Reynolds, "You don't want to hunt a man. It gets very dark very quickly".
The US definition of murder sure is a little exceptional compared to the ones commonly used in more civilized countries
A comment from a dumbfounded Swede
Are you not allowed to defend yourself in Sweden?
Can't wait until you meet a guy with a gun, Atticus. Then you can tell all of us how you defended yourself, brave troll.
The usual comment from gun nuts, and it’s a stupid one. Being allowed to shoot people out in the streets has nothing to do with justified violence to ward of an attack
The United States of America has totally lost it on guns!
First they succeeded in convincing Americans one needs a gun in the drawer of the night table in order to stay alive… and all of a sudden was the whole family in harms way for accidental or intentional shootings.
Then they succeeded in convincing you shopping for groceries is a deadly game… and all of a sudden are the crazy part of Americans trying to impersonate Wyatt Earp roaming the streets carrying loaded guns
… and now are right wing extremists allowed to show up at riots armed for war being granted the right to gun down unarmed citizens in “self defense”
"We need our guns to protect us from slaves who hate us for enslaving them!"
Where are those mafia hit men when you need one?
lts a good thing I'm busy most of the weekend, because the liberal response is going to be the same poor analytics that is more or less standard.
Liberals are getting pwoned in debate after debate by starting off with logical assumptions. And the other side is illogical and totally uninterested in logic anyway.
I this case, the logical assumption is that of the people going to the protest, many of them went unarmed and out of thousands virtually nothing came of it.
I mean, duh.
However, if you assume that there is something wrong with taking an assault rifle to a protest, and therefore the rather obvious consequence, that someone is shot and killed, then you miss the entire political point.
The right sees nothing wrong at all with taking an assault rifle anywhere.
Moreover, the reason they see nothing wrong with it is that the whole point of being armed is to use your guns, and this is exactly the type of situation that any right winger wants to use their guns in.
And our laws favor it.
Not true. I'm part of the "right" (I guess?) but I think there's definitely a problem with taking an assault rifle to a protest. When you do that bad things are a lot more likely to happen. (Same is true for engaging in violence and vandalism at protests, for that matter.) But that doesn't mean the jury decision was wrong. Rittenhouse made a pretty stupid decision to go there but that doesn't matter in evaluating the charges against him.
Well, you're not part of the right then.
I'm part of the left. It is obviously thanks to Scalia that the phrase "a well regulated militia" now means an "individual right to arm" but that's another rabbit hole.
I don't know the laws of Switzerland but I do know that I was there at a friends apartment in Geneva and as he was in the military reserves or something he had his army gun in his closet. That's what I would say the Second Amendment means, although there is also no need to have it in your closet to be a member of the reserves.
Anyway, no public policy that I can think of is served by open carry laws. I have seen tons of data on accidental shootings and killings, and no data on how open carry improves anything except the fantasy of the people doing the carrying.
You can't find a better example than this case. Rittenhouse could have gone there without the gun and done whatever he wanted to do and two people would be alive and Rittenhouse himself would be off to college somewhere getting blasted before tomorrow's football game.
Lost in the debate is how, regardless of the acquittal, the whole situation is a disaster with no upside.
That's why the debate is already off the rails.
The liberal debate is framed as if there is some presumption about going out with a gun that operates to the detriment of the person with the gun if they actually use it. There isn't. The prosecution actually argued that Rittenhouse was looking for trouble -- I mean, it was sort of a good try but the real debate is that the left views going out with a gun, period, as looking for trouble and the right thinks anyone who goes out without a gun is a wimp.
I almost totally agree with this. But i think your grouping everyone into these this left and right stereotypes regarding guns. Most people are in the middle. I am a republican and own a coupe rifles (one is a hand me down from my grandfather). I do t understand the desire for AR type rifles but I dont necessarily think they should be banned. I do look down upon the idiots who think they need to walk around with guns especially when they do so to intimidate others.
Wow, so many typos and no way to edit. Hopefully you get the gist.
You say the liberal assumption to show up to a protest unarmed is logical.
This assumption isn't why liberals get pwned in debates, bud.
It's because they seem to argue that people at protests can burn storefronts, car dealerships, and set fire to dumpsters and push them into gas pumps---which is what precipitated the initial conflict between Rittenhouse and Rosenblum--and that no one gets to object because of the morally pure motivation behind the rampant destruction.
It's an inversion of cause and effect.
Judge, jury, and executioner, eh? Something tells me that one of us doesn't know how our justice system (theoreticall) works. And it ain't me, but.
A "well-regulated militia" at that time being slave patrols. Yep, that one's baked into our culture.
Checking out of this thread - schadenfreude overload.
As is suggested by the comments here, the real issue is why a teenager is allowed to show up armed at a conflict zone. The footage of the immediate incident makes it difficult to convict for murder etc. but the danger here is broader and encompasses the whole society in which armed standoff is normalized. The chink in the armor here is that Kyle was underage. Is there not some statutory prohibition in that regard? Was some adult (parent?) negligent in allowing Kyle to go go out armed? Is this a prosecution error in not seeking a lesser charge that could speak to the underage issue? (Note that no armed adults killed anyone that night.)
In Wisconsin a 17 year old is allowed to carry a long gun (i.e. rifle or shotgun). That is why the initial weapons charge was thrown out.
This approaches the heart of the matter, methinks. How is that not batshit crazy?
Many of my friends and relatives have been hunting since they were 12 or so. That’s pretty normal in areas where hunting is common.
There's nothing crazy about hunting! I live in Montana. What's crazy is any teenage dimwit showing up to perform police duties, botching the job them facing no consequences.
For deer hunting, sure.
Many of my friends and relatives have been hunting since they were 12 or so. That’s pretty normal in areas where hunting is common.
It does seem that it is quite clear that what the literal law says means that Rittenhouse did have the legal right to carry a long gun and the judge absolutely did his job in throwing out that charge.
But also looks to me that likely the lawmakers probably did not intend that result. The law is poorly and confusingly drafted and I just have a hard time seeing intentionally writing it that way intending the literal result . Seems to me they really wanted an exception for hunting with a long gun and just screwed it up and made the exception bigger.
I have to deal with tax law a lot and the amount of poor drafting by congress is insane. With tax law , courts will often try to interpret consistent with intent even if not literal ( even though they are not supposed to) . And have to do so sometimes because the literal interpretation may be impossible ( like requiring a time machine) .
But , with criminal law , no judge should convict someone when they did not violate literal law .
I would expect this law should get fixed . If they really do intend for this result, still clean up the language.
Plus I guess that Kyle himself thought he was probably breaking the law in that regard.
I assume you’re correct in that the intent of the wording of the law was to allow for hunting.
...this (a) proves that white people can wantonly kill anyone they want and pay no penalty...
If you want to make any objections sound "hysterical," I guess that would be how you'd frame it. A better hypothetical would be this:
If Rittenhouse were a Black 17-y.o. shooting and killing white victims, what chances do you think the judge would comport himself the same and the jury would deliver the same verdict?
Seriously.
I mean, a black 17 year old shooting up anyone is going to be shot by the cops and we don't even need a trial, other than maybe the cops depending on the circumstances.
Black persons shooting white people? Come on, you can't even be a fan of "This Old House" and be black, as the Georgia situation demonstrates, let alone shoot anyone.
Your example is irrelevant. If he did it in a ghetto and had a judge of his peers, would that help????
That this country allows heavily armed mobs to demonstrate publicly is plainly nuts. But here we are, and how could it be prevented? Gun ownership and the ideology of gun ownership are too widespread and embedded, IMO, to be rooted out in any foreseeable future. I recall the Black Panthers broaching this issue in the 60's -- giving some of us a different perspective on it. Keeping in mind that the armed goons who've showed up even at alt-right events have so far behaved -- I hate to way it -- responsibly. (No incidents come to mind) But it all seems prelude to the coming civil war, and the only good news is that so far the Left has refrained from adopting the same stance. If we are the adults in the room, maybe there's hope to avoid the fever dreams of the retrograde right-wing warrior culture.
That is because they aren't "left". Real lefties hate homosexuality like classical Marxism did. You need to change your terminology. Most likely the next leftist military wave will be related to destroying capitalism and liquidation of debt expansion to save the planet.
Unfortunately if the standard now is if one brings a weapon to a political protest and it is used and it's use can be justified for "self defense" then more people are simply going to arm themselves and then protests are going to really turn deadly. Since police haven't been exactly arresting people who do have guns at these things and since the laws about the carrying and use of such weapons are so ambiguous as to meaningless in their enforcement, that's exactly what's going to happen and sadly the police brought it on themselves because police unions more worried about qualified immunity than their members' safety. That is the larger implication of this verdict, not what happens to Kyle Rittenhouse who's basically a symbol to many people (especially his supporters) and hardly a real human being.
The things is, if they really felt he was not guilty, why take four days to deliberate? I have to believe the fact the judge had not ruled on the motions for a mistrial influenced their decision-making, thinking that if they did vote to convict, the judge would simply declare the whole thing a mistrial with prejudice. I'm not going to argue the fix was in from the beginning. This judge is a real piece of work.
Unfortunately if the standard now is if one brings a weapon to a political protest and it is used and it's use can be justified for "self defense" ...
You left out the killer part which says " ... and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, _not_ on the defendant ..."
Of course. That’s a cornerstone of our justice system. No one should ever have to prove their innocence.
You have a probleme with selective reading incomprehension, don't you? You need to step up your game.
Ronald Wilson Reagan himself moved to ensure California would never suffer a Black Reverse Lynch Mob.
He ain't white. Let's just be honest on that one.
Apparently you aren't allowed to neutralize the shooter until he actually starts firing shots at people. That's how narrow a gate for conviction the law and the jury instructions the prosecutor had to get through.
Its actually worse than that.
Because killing someone under these circumstance is eligible for a "self defense" defense (its not like he knew the victims, for example), the shooter gets to testify about fear of great bodily harm or worse.
Then, that is the basic fact, I mean, the debate on the left is sort of ignoring that. It does say the fear of harm has to be "reasonable" so I guess Rittenhouse could not gun down a four year old who yelled at him or something, but not only did the prosecution have a narrow gate, but the defense had a wide gate.
Yes, exactly. I should have said that, because this is the crux of the law that justice dies on. No pun intended.
The impression to a lay person such as myself (IANAL) is of a legal system which studiously avoids the issue. There ought to some sanction on Mr. R. that indicates society's disapproval of his showing up armed. He's a fucking kid!
As I predicted, unfortunately.
I think this is a more complex situation than either R's or D's think.
Yes, he was a dumbass for being there, a double dumbass in fact, for being there with a gun, for being a minor with a gun, and the guy who gave it to him should 100% be headed to prison.
You have more dumbasses on the right for offering him jobs and proclaiming him a hero.
However, once he was there, and they came after him, guess what, he wasn't the sole purveyor of dumbassery at that point.
So then, what the hell do you do in his shoes because, suddenly, the situation is completely out of control.
You can hate me, ignore me, whatever, which is exactly what a right-leaning forum would do if I wrote this exact thing there, but it was a mess. He caused some of it, and I'll even agree, if he were black, it doesn't go this way, and the judge was a dumb#$%^#, but, it was a mess, which is the undeniable part.
And I do not know what the correct answer was. Whatever it is, I will say that I don't think the verdict is it but I don't have a readily obvious answer either. Guns are a huge problem in this country. Hopefully we'll deal with them someday.
+1
One more thing. I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but what if Grosskreutz had fired and killed Rittenhouse? Does he get acquitted too?
This. By that point Rittenhouse had proven he was dangerous so Grosskreutz would have justification to shoot first if Rittenhouse turned towards him.
According to this verdict Grosskreuts was the aggressor and Rittenhouse the victim. Thus we can assume he would have been found guilty of murder.
Probably
Very good question and would those defending Ritttenhouse feel the same way about Grosskreutz if he was faster on the draw and had a much more powerful weapon? I think we know the answer to that question. I also think we know that Grosskreutz probably would have been arrested on the spot rather be allowed to turn himself in.
I know I’ve read about protests in a number of jurisdictions where the authorities wouldn’t so much as permit protest signs on sticks, on the grounds that the sticks could be used as weapons. Here’s an example from Berkeley CA for example; eggs (!) are also proscribed: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2017/04/14/sticks-pipes-poles-banned-berkeley-preps-saturday-protests
Allowing firearms at any protest, no, at any event which is likely to arouse controversy, is lunacy.
Social conservative mental disorder,
https://i.redd.it/ftehfv2h7c081.jpg
No, I think it demonstrates a long drift that started with stand your ground laws and ends with the presumption that anyone who ends up dead was the one at fault and whoever survives was only defending themselves.
AURORA, Colo. (KDVR) — City leaders and community activists are speaking out about the gun violence plaguing the Aurora community after nine students were shot in two school-related shootings. At Hinkley High School on Friday, where three students were shot in the parking lot, teens and parents wrapped their arms around one another as they attempted to wrap their heads around what’s become a remarkable reality.
Rottenness and those he shot are all idiots… Just like these kids shooting at each other in Colorado. It’s difficult to give a damn about any of them.
The *trial* was just a show so Kylie could go free .
Well, so much for legal remedies; how about civil ones? Burden of proof standards are much different in that purview and I would love to see this little punk sued for $60,000,000 or so. Let him be destitute for the rest of his life; I don't think the right wing will step up to the plate for those kind of awards.
Maybe he should sue the estates of the deceased for attacking him and forcing him to defend himself?
Bring it.