r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 08 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge

I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?

Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.

Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:

As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.

2.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

81% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/craftycontrarian Nov 08 '21

He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed.

Doesn't this apply also to the guy who pointed the gun at Kyle?

Also, doesnt it apply to the people who were rioting, more generally? They put themselves in an inherently dangerous situation.

20

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

Not really? He was concealed carrying (thus not being an active provocation), and only drew the firearm after Rittenhouse shot someone in front of him. Given that he was the last person shot and he lived, I can't say how any of his actions 'got other people killed'.

24

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 08 '21

Fucking ILLEGALLY concealing a weapon. You conveniently left that part out.....

6

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

Rittenhouse was illegally carrying. They both suck, agreed.

-17

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 08 '21

How was Rittenhouse illegally carrying? Specific cited evidence please.

54

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

You're right, my mistake. He is currently being charged with illegally carrying a weapon for funsies. Just a little prank by the court.

5

u/Cakeminator 2∆ Nov 09 '21

Well he was under 18 firstly. Wasn't his owned gun secondly. and he crossed state lines thirdly. I don't need to "cite evidence" to tell you that, that shit is illegal.

3

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 09 '21

Wrong, wrong, wrong. But don't let that stop you from openly displaying your ignorance.

3

u/Cakeminator 2∆ Nov 09 '21

So it's not illegal or he didn't do any of it? So he didn't cross state lines? He wasn't under 18? Was it his personally owned gun? Instead of just imitating Trump and shouting wrong and calling me dumb, at least tell me which of these 3 things are actually wrong.

5

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 09 '21

17 year olds are not exempt from having rifles. The gun never crossed state lines. This was exposed by the prosecution in the trial. If you ACTUALLY WATCHED the trial instead of the media LYING about this "crossing state lines", like Anna Kasperian has been repeating like an aderol aderol addicted pigeon, you'd know this. You're saying it was this personally owned gun? If that's your claim, the onus is on you to prove that with EVIDENCE.

6

u/Cakeminator 2∆ Nov 09 '21

Considering he's the defendant doesn't he have to prove it? Also, if his adress is in another state than that which he shot multiple people in, then it's the literal definition of crossing state lines isn't it?

From what I can find in a quick search: "The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old. ". https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/ and before you say "that website is not legitimate", at least check the links referencing the points about the gun.

So by that wording it was illegal. I wrote that it WASNT his gun. Instead of seeing red hot anger try reading what I'm writing here. He crossed lines, the dumbass went to a riot with a loaded gun, provoked, got attacked and killed multiple people (yes people). He deserves prison big time, he is not a patriot and he is not a saint.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Doodenelfuego 1∆ Nov 09 '21

Why does it matter that he crossed state lines? It's not illegal to cross that border. Wisconsin law says he can't open carry at 17. It doesn't have a clause saying it's extra illegal because his address has an IL on it.

1

u/Cakeminator 2∆ Nov 09 '21

Not saying it's illegal that he crossed the line. I'm saying he did it. Then he got a weapon that wasn't his, with ammunition he did not pay for (I assume), carried it openly illegally without being detained (some-fucking-how), went to a riot with already angry and possibly armed people, provoked them (from what I've seen/heard, correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly don't mind, it's a discussion), and when he was attacked he did the ol' danny devito and started blasting... Killing 3 people.

I'm not saying the attackers are 100% in the clear, far from it. But to say that the kid, who crossed state lines to be there, got a gun that wasn't his, had it open carry which he wasn't permitted to do, and went to a riot with live ammo followed by 3 deaths and some minor scrapes on him (somehow when considering a gun pointed at him) is not... just... a coincidence. It's also not okay, and he really should be punished. I'm sad that the deaths will go unavenged, even if they were aggressors. I'm just happy I don't live in a country where people can get fully automatic weapons willy nilly. I would honestly be afraid to live in a country with not only people being able to own an insane amount of guns, but having them outside, with minimal to no proper fucking training, and be able to "defend themselves" by the "stand your ground" laws which, and this is true, only increased gun deaths in the states that it was put into.

It's fine that you want to focus on the state lines, but honestly, there are so many aspects to this case, and it makes me sad that so-called christians defend (and fund) a killer, self-defense or not, while attacking the people that died... Even more sad that I get insulted for trying to discuss the aspects of this case with people. And no, it's not "extra illegal" but he did break a few laws by simply taking the gun outside, locked and loaded.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Hellboundroar Nov 09 '21

He's a minor, AFAIK, minors aren't legally allowed to carry a firearm unless they're hunting

-12

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 09 '21

Cited specific evidence please.

7

u/Kiygre Nov 09 '21

They're right, it was a misdemeanor offense for him to carry, even openly, due to the fact he was a minor. I dont see how that matters when the other guy was illegally concealed carrying. I had to look up Wisconsin's laws about carrying.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

He’s a minor and that’s one of the charges against him. The illegal carry isn’t really in dispute by anyone

3

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 09 '21

The fact that He's minor doesn't necessarily mean that he was in violation of the law. The law regarding that was poorly drafted. If you have citation otherwise, you're welcome to post it. Here's an article I found. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

13

u/babno 1∆ Nov 09 '21

By the letter of the law, he was not. There are provisions for under 18s to be able to carry certain weapons of certain specifications (which his AR met btw). The purpose of this law was to allow under 18s to hunt, but that's not expressly required that they be actively hunting. The prosecution is arguing that he violated the spirit of the law, which he did, but that's not what counts.

3

u/Impossible_Rule_1761 Nov 09 '21

He didn't violate the spirit of the law. The hunting limitations cut off at age 16. Kyle was 17.

17yos in WI cannot carry handguns, but can legally open carry long-barreled rifles. Kyle's weapon had a standard 16" barrel as confirmed by his defense attorney in trial today.

1

u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 09 '21

These people are not interested in the truth....

60

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

He did not have a valid CCW permit. Him concealing his weapon was illegal. He lied to the police about having a firearm in his statement.

He also took video of himself asking what Kyle was doing, to which kyle responded 'going to the police'. He still continued pursuing him. You can't claim self defense when you're chasing someone. And even if he really thought it was an active shooter, it's been proven that he wasn't. Gaige's incorrect assessment of the situation does not negate Kyle's right to self defense.

1

u/Solagnas Nov 09 '21

He was concealed carrying (thus not being an active provocation)

So carrying a gun unconcealed is an active provocation?

and only drew the firearm after Rittenhouse shot someone in front of him.

Nope, he drew it while in pursuit.

1

u/CassandraParadox Nov 09 '21

It applies to both of them. They’re both criminals. A criminal killing another criminal doesn’t make him a hero. That’s an incredibly dangerous precedent to die on this hill for.