Kyle Rittenhouse Acquittal - Shocking!

[StoicJ]

Just wow!  That somewhat blew my mind for a moment, I yelled out loud as the justice system is so flawed...

What were these jury members and judge thinking?  Unbelievable in every aspect of this case, I do not believe it!

Link: NBA reacts to Kyle Rittenhouse verdict - United News Post

Link: Sports world reacts to Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict (yahoo.com)

I'm surprised people can look at what Kyle Rittenhouse did and see anything BUT justified self-defense.

[freeloader]

Just wow!  That somewhat blew my mind for a moment, I yelled out loud as the justice system is so flawed...

What were these jury members and judge thinking?  Unbelievable in every aspect of this case, I do not believe it!

Link: NBA reacts to Kyle Rittenhouse verdict - United News Post

Link: Sports world reacts to Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict (yahoo.com)

I'm surprised people can look at what Kyle Rittenhouse did and see anything BUT justified self-defense.

So, my understanding is that the Governor of Wisconsin had declared a state of emergency the day that Rittenhouse shot those people (hours before it happened). The city had also set established a curfew stating people should be off the streets. If I understand correctly, Rittenhouse was present in violation of those two orders. 

Rittenhouse has maintained that he was only present to render aid. However, he chose to be armed. My grandfather was a medic in a couple of wars in the army and then a firefighter/EMT. I asked him if he ever went armed and he said no—it is a violation of the Geneva Convention for medics and it was against state law in his state (which was not Wisconsin, FWIW). Clearly, what Rittenhouse did was outside what is expected for medics, though, admittedly, it may not have been illegal. It is also worth noting that he went to Kenosha with people whose stated purpose was to protect other people’s property. Depending on the state, people often have the right to use physical violence to protect THEIR property and some people (such as police and security guards) are allowed to use violence to protect other people’s property. I don’t know if a state which allows random citizens who are not police, military, security, or similar to use violence to protect other people’s property. In other words, at minimum, Rittenhouse was present with people who had the intent to potentially violate the law. 

I understand the perspective that Rittenhouse was there to “do good”, but the reality is that you can do bad (and illegal) things in the name of “doing good”. 

I think there also is a huge question of race. Rittenhouse was present in what was a race riot. The governor of Wisconsin said as much in declaring the state of emergency. Kyle Rittenhouse was given high fives, attaboys, and water bottles by law enforcement with his weapon in plain sight. If everything else was the same EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse was black, would that police reaction have been the same?  I highly doubt it. Honestly, a black Kyle Rittenhouse probably never would have gotten the chance to kill those people because he likely would have been arrested for rioting or violating the curfew. 

Personally, I think what Rittenhouse did probably was not illegal but probably should have been. However, I am married to a lawyer and used to work in law enforcement. I try to actually look at the law and not viewing things strictly through an emotional lens, though, certainly, I am not always successful. 

Rittenhouse had no business being in Kenosha that night. Period. He put himself in a bad and dangerous situation. I have said it before, and I will say it again, he was not trained for that situation. Yes, he had shot his AR at his friend’s makeshift range in the woods, but he was not a soldier, not a lawman, and was not protecting HIS life or property. 

The question has been raised as to whether he was a vigilante. I certainly believe he was.  He was taking the law in his own hands and had no legal authority to do it. I was taught that you carry a gun if you need it and you draw it if you intend to use it. Period.

[Pats20]

I wholeheartedly agree that the kid shouldn’t even had been there. But people put themselves in bad situations everyday, and they should be able to defend themselves if necessary.

[StoicJ]

I'm surprised people can look at what Kyle Rittenhouse did and see anything BUT justified self-defense.

So, my understanding is that the Governor of Wisconsin had declared a state of emergency the day that Rittenhouse shot those people (hours before it happened). The city had also set established a curfew stating people should be off the streets. If I understand correctly, Rittenhouse was present in violation of those two orders. 

I don't know if he was there illegally. If so, seems like that should have been one of the charges, no? Maybe in place of that foolish firearm charge that was dismissed?

Rittenhouse has maintained that he was only present to render aid. However, he chose to be armed. My grandfather was a medic in a couple of wars in the army and then a firefighter/EMT. I asked him if he ever went armed and he said no—it is a violation of the Geneva Convention for medics and it was against state law in his state (which was not Wisconsin, FWIW). Clearly, what Rittenhouse did was outside what is expected for medics, though, admittedly, it may not have been illegal.

Geneva Convention has dick to do with this. Entirely irrelevant in this situation. He was there to act as a medic AND to protect property. He was armed because he figured he might have to use a weapon to protect himself or others. Maybe if some guy chased him and intended to hurt him, or if someone knocked him down while he was running away, or if someone ran up to him while he was down and kicked him in the head, or if someone tried to bash his skull in with a skateboard, or if someone ran at him with a handgun drawn. Turns out he was right.

It is also worth noting that he went to Kenosha with people whose stated purpose was to protect other people’s property. Depending on the state, people often have the right to use physical violence to protect THEIR property and some people (such as police and security guards) are allowed to use violence to protect other people’s property. I don’t know if a state which allows random citizens who are not police, military, security, or similar to use violence to protect other people’s property. In other words, at minimum, Rittenhouse was present with people who had the intent to potentially violate the law. 

Present with people who maybe had intent to potentially.... C'mon man  , just stop.

I understand the perspective that Rittenhouse was there to “do good”, but the reality is that you can do bad (and illegal) things in the name of “doing good”. 

Yup, but in this case Kyle Rittenhouse did good and legal things.

I think there also is a huge question of race. Rittenhouse was present in what was a race riot. The governor of Wisconsin said as much in declaring the state of emergency. Kyle Rittenhouse was given high fives, attaboys, and water bottles by law enforcement with his weapon in plain sight. If everything else was the same EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse was black, would that police reaction have been the same?  I highly doubt it.
Honestly, a black Kyle Rittenhouse probably never would have gotten the chance to kill those people because he likely would have been arrested for rioting or violating the curfew. 

Yeah, if he'd have been a black guy with a rifle the police reaction probably would have been the same. Doesn't fit with your view of the world but it's kinda the way it is.

I try to actually look at the law and not viewing things strictly through an emotional lens, though, certainly, I am not always successful. 

Certainly.

Rittenhouse had no business being in Kenosha that night. Period.

He had good reason to be there. No one says you have to like his reasons. Protect property, maybe save lives.

He put himself in a bad and dangerous situation. I have said it before, and I will say it again, he was not trained for that situation.

He really did put himself in a dangerous situation. Good for him I suppose. Wasn't trained for it.... but damned if he didn't lay out three bad guys.

Yes, he had shot his AR at his friend’s makeshift range in the woods, but he was not a soldier, not a lawman, and was not protecting HIS life or property.

Well, AR variant, but I getcha. I have a range area, in the "woods". It starts about 100 feet from my front door and goes about 200 yards to a berm. It's not makeshift, it's a legit range. I also belonged to a shooting club until a couple of years ago. That range was much nicer and allowed for a broader range of shooting, but it wasn't any more "legit" than the one steps from my door.

Oh, and Kyle Rittenhouse actually WAS protecting his life. DID, in fact.

The question has been raised as to whether he was a vigilante. I certainly believe he was.  He was taking the law in his own hands and had no legal authority to do it.

Vigilante? Depends on your definition. Yours and mine may differ, but I'm certainly okay with calling him one. 

I was taught that you carry a gun if you need it and you draw it if you intend to use it. Period.

Looks like we agree in something.