Kyle Rittenhouse Acquittal - Shocking!

[freeloader]

I'm going to guess that the only people who were shocked by this acquittal were people who didn't actually watch the trial, but got all of their info from mainstream news outlets.  If you had watched the trial for just a few hours, you'd have seen the videos, and known clearly that this was a case of self-defense.

That is probably true to some degree, but we all fall into traps where we twist things or cite things out of context when they support a political position we favor. You, yourself, spent a number of paragraphs talking about the character and prior bad acts of the victims. It doesn’t matter how often they drop the N-bomb or how many children they rape. But, it helps support the idea that Rittenhouse was “good” and those people were “bad”. 

I think the bigger issue is that a lot of people wanted this trial to be something that it wasn’t. This wasn’t some sort of referendum on racial inequalities in the legal system or about the pervasiveness of gun ownership. A lot of people, particularly on the left, wanted this trial to be those things. Many people on the left wanted to be able to point to Rittenhouse and say “you only got away with these killings because you are white”. Whether for good or ill, this was not what was at issue in this case. 

Wisconsin has laws that are written in such a way that children can legally possess long guns, they can carry them openly on public streets, and they can intentionally place themselves into dangerous situations where the threat of violence is high.  They are not required to have any sort of training before placing themselves in those situations. If that person then reasonably fears for their life (or feels in threat of substantial bodily harm), they can then use deadly force.  That is exactly what happened here.

[LevelUP]

[jsd]

Hah, this one is pretty good.

[dfrecore]

I'm going to guess that the only people who were shocked by this acquittal were people who didn't actually watch the trial, but got all of their info from mainstream news outlets.  If you had watched the trial for just a few hours, you'd have seen the videos, and known clearly that this was a case of self-defense.

That is probably true to some degree, but we all fall into traps where we twist things or cite things out of context when they support a political position we favor. You, yourself, spent a number of paragraphs talking about the character and prior bad acts of the victims. It doesn’t matter how often they drop the N-bomb or how many children they rape. But, it helps support the idea that Rittenhouse was “good” and those people were “bad”. 

I think the bigger issue is that a lot of people wanted this trial to be something that it wasn’t. This wasn’t some sort of referendum on racial inequalities in the legal system or about the pervasiveness of gun ownership. A lot of people, particularly on the left, wanted this trial to be those things. Many people on the left wanted to be able to point to Rittenhouse and say “you only got away with these killings because you are white”. Whether for good or ill, this was not what was at issue in this case. 

Wisconsin has laws that are written in such a way that children can legally possess long guns, they can carry them openly on public streets, and they can intentionally place themselves into dangerous situations where the threat of violence is high.  They are not required to have any sort of training before placing themselves in those situations. If that person then reasonably fears for their life (or feels in threat of substantial bodily harm), they can then use deadly force.  That is exactly what happened here.

First, I was trying to point out that the "victims" were scumbags who were openly rioting.  Why has the mainstream media not pointed that out to anyone?  It may not matter to the trial that they were scumbags - but it should matter to everyone who wants to portray them as innocent victims - which they were not.  They were there that night to cause trouble.

Second, I started my first post with FACTS about the shooting.  He did not cross state lines with a weapon.  That is a fact.  But the media reportedly stated the opposite.  They also implied that he traveled a great distance, when in fact it was less than 20 miles.  They implied that he was an outsider coming to the state, when in fact he was a part time resident there, with a parent who lived in that city.  Lots of things going on here that shows how despicable the media is.

The media also portraying this as something that it's not: from what they heard, MANY thought it was a white guy who shot black guys.  I told a friend, "it was a white guy who shot 3 white guys, there were no black people involved in this at all" and she was absolutely shocked.  She'd only gotten her news from the media, and had it all wrong.

Many outlets also repeatedly said that the "police shot and killed Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man" when he is still very much alive, and was armed with a knife.  The officer was responding to a woman who said that Blake was not supposed to be there (she had a restraining order against him, and he had a felony warrant out for RAPING HER WHILE HIS CHILD WAS NEXT TO HER IN THE BED).  When the officer arrived, Blake was witnessed putting one of his children in a car, and they found his other 2 children inside as well.  If you don't think a car is a weapon, then you haven't been paying attention (a man just killed a bunch of people this weekend in WI).  Ask Susan Smith if putting your kids in a car while you're angry or distraught or just inconvenienced is a good plan (she drove her car into a lake with her children strapped into their carseats, where they drowned, and blamed it on a black man stealing her car).

All of this to say that while I may THINK something, I have facts to back much of it up.  Please tell me which part is incorrect, and I will correct it.

But coming on here to say that you're shocked about a verdict in which you spend no time watching the trial (which was televised), and no time actually finding out what any of the facts are, is just nuts.  Why on earth are you shocked about something that you know nothing about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for "children" being able to own guns, "children" can go to war - if they're 17, which Rittenhouse was.  He also managed not to shoot a single bystander, so to say that he was untrained is also incorrect.  He had spent many hours shooting that gun at a range.

But the 2nd amendment allows us to own guns, and state laws determine which guns and what we can do, and Rittenhouse did not do anything wrong.  To continue to say that "he shouldn't have been there" only applied is the rioters wouldn't have been there in the first place.  The fact that he went to a place where people were rioting may not have been what you would have done, but then again, a woman was raped on a subway recently, and not a single witness helped her.  No one even called 911!  It seems like if you stand up for what's right, and try to stop looters and rioters from burning down your city, you're called unwise, but if you don't even try to stop someone from getting raped right in front of you...I don't even know what to say to that.  I think there would be less crime if MORE people stood up and did what was right, not fewer.

[Flelm]

So my question is, why is Rittenhouse at fault for trying to help his own community (he lived part time in Kenosha), while these 3 people who were rioting in the streets and violent criminals not questioned about why they where there??

Because as a society we have deemed vigilantes to be criminals.

(I think the right verdict was rendered in this case, but I also think that Kyle went to this protest looking for an excuse.)

[dfrecore]

So my question is, why is Rittenhouse at fault for trying to help his own community (he lived part time in Kenosha), while these 3 people who were rioting in the streets and violent criminals not questioned about why they where there??

Because as a society we have deemed vigilantes to be criminals.

(I think the right verdict was rendered in this case, but I also think that Kyle went to this protest looking for an excuse.)

He was not a vigilante, he went there to try to render aid to people (he's clearly seen on video doing this, asking if anyone needs help); and he went to help protect property that was being burned, but by putting out fires rather than forcibly stopping anyone from doing anything (again, there's video of him putting out a dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher).

There just seems to be a lot of talk about what Rittenhouse did wrong, and absolutely nothing about rioters, police allowing it (this was DAY 3 of riots), and the media reporting lies.  Weird that everyone seems to be fine with those things.

BTW - if police allow riots and burning/looting of cities, my guess is there will be MORE of this in the future rather than less.  If the police/government/governor had done more to stop this nonsense in the first place, Rittenhouse would not have felt the need to do anything at all.  If you feel like you can't count on the police to do policing, you're going to HAVE to take matters into your own hands.  What is the alternative? To just let maniacs take over?  Not my town, no thank you.

[Flelm]

So my question is, why is Rittenhouse at fault for trying to help his own community (he lived part time in Kenosha), while these 3 people who were rioting in the streets and violent criminals not questioned about why they where there??

Because as a society we have deemed vigilantes to be criminals.

(I think the right verdict was rendered in this case, but I also think that Kyle went to this protest looking for an excuse.)

He was not a vigilante, he went there to try to render aid to people (he's clearly seen on video doing this, asking if anyone needs help); and he went to help protect property that was being burned, but by putting out fires rather than forcibly stopping anyone from doing anything (again, there's video of him putting out a dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher).

Yes, he was seen on video saying he's an EMT (he's not) and to come to him if anyone needed help. However, he was posted up in front of a car dealership openly carrying a rifle, with a bunch of other people with guns, including some on the roof as a makeshift sniper's nest. The car dealership denies that they asked or authorized these people to protect their property. They were trespassing as much as the rioters were. They were self-appointed "protectors" of someone else's property. I'm not going to speak to the legality of open carrying weapons, but in my opinion it's very hard to help people with a gun.

There just seems to be a lot of talk about what Rittenhouse did wrong, and absolutely nothing about rioters, police allowing it (this was DAY 3 of riots), and the media reporting lies.  Weird that everyone seems to be fine with those things.

For better or worse, yes, this is focused on Rittenhouse. Because he killed 2 people.

BTW - if police allow riots and burning/looting of cities, my guess is there will be MORE of this in the future rather than less.  If the police/government/governor had done more to stop this nonsense in the first place, Rittenhouse would not have felt the need to do anything at all.  If you feel like you can't count on the police to do policing, you're going to HAVE to take matters into your own hands.  What is the alternative? To just let maniacs take over?  Not my town, no thank you.

So was he there to render aid to people or to do something else? (or both, sure, people can have multiple motivations). And what you put here is the very definition of vigilantism.

vigilante - a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate

You can't have it all the ways. If you're there to do something because "you can't count on the police to do policing, [and you] HAVE to take matters into your own hands" you're a vigilante. Period. If you believe that property is worth more than someone's life, we have different value systems.

[dfrecore]

So my question is, why is Rittenhouse at fault for trying to help his own community (he lived part time in Kenosha), while these 3 people who were rioting in the streets and violent criminals not questioned about why they where there??

Because as a society we have deemed vigilantes to be criminals.

(I think the right verdict was rendered in this case, but I also think that Kyle went to this protest looking for an excuse.)

He was not a vigilante, he went there to try to render aid to people (he's clearly seen on video doing this, asking if anyone needs help); and he went to help protect property that was being burned, but by putting out fires rather than forcibly stopping anyone from doing anything (again, there's video of him putting out a dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher).

Yes, he was seen on video saying he's an EMT (he's not) and to come to him if anyone needed help. However, he was posted up in front of a car dealership openly carrying a rifle, with a bunch of other people with guns, including some on the roof as a makeshift sniper's nest. The car dealership denies that they asked or authorized these people to protect their property. They were trespassing as much as the rioters were. They were self-appointed "protectors" of someone else's property. I'm not going to speak to the legality of open carrying weapons, but in my opinion it's very hard to help people with a gun.

There just seems to be a lot of talk about what Rittenhouse did wrong, and absolutely nothing about rioters, police allowing it (this was DAY 3 of riots), and the media reporting lies.  Weird that everyone seems to be fine with those things.

For better or worse, yes, this is focused on Rittenhouse. Because he killed 2 people.

BTW - if police allow riots and burning/looting of cities, my guess is there will be MORE of this in the future rather than less.  If the police/government/governor had done more to stop this nonsense in the first place, Rittenhouse would not have felt the need to do anything at all.  If you feel like you can't count on the police to do policing, you're going to HAVE to take matters into your own hands.  What is the alternative? To just let maniacs take over?  Not my town, no thank you.

So was he there to render aid to people or to do something else? (or both, sure, people can have multiple motivations). And what you put here is the very definition of vigilantism.

vigilante - a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate

You can't have it all the ways. If you're there to do something because "you can't count on the police to do policing, [and you] HAVE to take matters into your own hands" you're a vigilante. Period. If you believe that property is worth more than someone's life, we have different value systems.

I was going by the broadened version of "Vigilante" which in our country generally is a bit more than just the simple definition you showed "In this slightly broadened sense it carries the suggestion of the enforcement of laws without regard to due process or the general rule of law."

And when he was claiming to be an EMT, was he saying "come over here and I'll shoot you?" or was he telling people he would help them?  Because I think that matters.

He was trying to help his community, he was trying to stop people from burning and looting, but he did not shoot ANYONE who was not attacking him - he did not attack anyone else, he was running away in every instance.

I guess everyone here hasn't lived anywhere where they had to worry about things like this; and I hope no one ever does, because your families will be at great risk if you're not willing to stand up to people who want to burn your house down.  I mean, you shouldn't value property over lives, so by all means, if someone ever comes to do so, tell them to give you a minute to get your families and pets out, and then tell them to go to town and do whatever they want.  You have insurance, and it's "just property" so it's not important.  If it's your business, same.  You probably don't actually count on the income from it to pay your mortgage or feed your kids.  Whatever. No big deal.  And if the police don't come to stop them, that's ok - you won't be angry or upset about your tax dollars that pay their salaries going to waste.

People have a strange ability to not put themselves in others shoes.  I for one am glad that if the police won't/can't do their jobs, I'll be protected by someone (and myself of course).

[Flelm]

Wait, so are you saying he a vigilante or not? I don't understand the distinction you're making between my definition and yours. He was attempting to stop destruction of (someone else's) property, meaning he was trying to enforce a law without being a governmental law enforcement officer.

What are you even talking about with the EMT thing? I am saying that regardless of what his words were (which at least some of them were lies), he was open carrying a rifle, which in my opinion is confrontational, especially when you look like you're in a group of other people with guns. I don't know of any medical procedure that requires a gun. Ok, ok, yes, the gun was for self defense. Sure. Self defense against the people he was trying to help?

Please don't make assumptions about who I am, or where I live, or what my situation is. I like how you think the only way people can have a different opinion than yours is because they're privileged to have never been in a situation like this, and as soon as they are, they'll come around to your correct way of thinking.

I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation, I don't think I have the ability to change any of your views. Feel free to respond, I will read but won't respond back.

[dfrecore]

Wait, so are you saying he a vigilante or not? I don't understand the distinction you're making between my definition and yours. He was attempting to stop destruction of (someone else's) property, meaning he was trying to enforce a law without being a governmental law enforcement officer.

My idea of a vigilante is more of an active thing - like the men convicted in Ahmaud Arbery's trial: they thought he was doing something wrong, grabbed their guns, and chased him down. Then shot him.

Rittenhouse was not chasing anyone, rather he was being chased.  He only shot 3 out of the 4 people who attacked him.