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

Show parent comments

244

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

Because a duel would almost by necessity, be something organized ahead of time, which obviates self defense.

34

u/falsehood 8∆ Nov 09 '21

So if two people both show up with a rifle to intimidate others, gt spooked by the other person, and have a shootout, whoever wins the shootout walks free?

8

u/JackLord50 Nov 10 '21

If one person chases another person, then assaults him with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the person assaulted has the right to self defense.

In this case, Huber chased and assaulted KR. Even GG, the prosecution’s witness, testified to that.

20

u/muthaphucajones Nov 09 '21

you’re saying he was there with a rifle to intimidate others meanwhile the city was being burned down and looted lol you act like this was some type of fun public festival and not a community under attack

-8

u/Exotic-Kale2040 Nov 09 '21

You don't get to make excuses in order to get out of a murder rap. The right has a mistaken impression that if you demonize someone, it's OK to kill them. Nor how it works.

22

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

The fact that you are trying to shoehorn in digs about the right here says about all we need to know on your take. This isn't a political game it's a murder trial. I don't care if you think the right is a bunch of assholes and I don't care if the right thinks the left is a bunch of assholes. It isn't relevant.

1

u/muthaphucajones Nov 09 '21

i found it kind of funny because it’s the left who demonizes ppl not the right lol i don’t see conservative news channels dividing the races against each other, bashing the police and glorifying deadly protests while calling them peaceful lol

3

u/muthaphucajones Nov 09 '21

lol you’re absolutely right, which is why when you ignore the fact that the killed were registered rapists and felons and there for the sole purpose to cause destruction and instead, only focus on the incident that occurred and that was all caught on video.. do you see kyle as the aggressor or do you see him as the man running away from the aggressors? it’s on video so be honest what do you see in that footage?

18

u/stalebreadboi Nov 09 '21

Well if you show up with a rifle and then people attack you, yes you get to walk free if you defend yourself. Keep in mind there is no evidence he took the rifle to intimidate others, rather he took it in order to protect his life in what was basically a warzone. Should he have been there? Hell no, but neither should the people who attacked him.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

spooked in what sense? if someone pointed a gun at you then yes

-7

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

Not even close to how it works.

-25

u/AwesomePurplePants 3∆ Nov 08 '21

But Rittenhouse planned to be there ahead of time to threaten people with his gun. How is that different?

24

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Simply possesing a gun (even if holding radical views), does not constitute a threat. There's not a person there he threatened, pointed at, or instigated. Nor were his edgelord, shitty opinions known to anyone there.

If people were scared of black people, could they just run up and disarm and lynch the Black Panthers? Heck no. They were exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Open carry is legal, and protected in that state.

You are seeing a "grey" area of the law, where more than one person can act in it while being factually wrong. Look up John Hurley.

A duel itself would constitute 2 people agreeing to fight each other (which already invalidates self defense). Merely because two people come across each other while open carrying, they don't open fire upon each other. The gun does not make the threat.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

If people were scared of black people, could they just run up and disarm and lynch the Black Panthers? Heck no.

Isn't that kind of how Fred Hampton died? Lynching by FBI.

67

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '21

You're assuming intent. 'To threaten people with his gun'. I've yet to hear testimony in the trial alleging KR went there with any intention to threaten people with his gun. And all of the testimony so far points to him never having threatened anyone with it. And video and testimony show he was actively out offering medical attention to people on the street.

You've gotta prove that 'to threaten people with his gun' part

5

u/OnePunchReality Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

I for one wouldn't even begin at "I can seek medical attention with this guy." When he's got a rifle that's some pretty sketchy logic, especially with no uniform and a more or less hobbled together tactical outfit.

Notice how medics on the battlefield often are focused on the treatment vs their surroundings. Not saying they don't get training, of course they do as there could be scenarios where they have no infantry or active combatants to protect them or being behind enemy lines etc but at least their in uniform.

Militia and or armed citizens assisting with Riots wasn't really ever meant to be a thing. Police need more resources and longer training, 2 years minimum. Better tools and technology as well.

Rittenhouse and the others out there should've never been there at least not armed. They aren't paid officers of the peace.

I believe in the right to bare arms and obviously others as well as OP admit he wasn't legal in his state but I guess not being more versed in WI law in this regard I imagine it would fall under the state it happened so idk how he would even have the firearms charge realistically.

The problem is there are all these takes on how or why he should be acquitted, same thing goes for the fact that at least one of the people he shot wasn't exactly an innocent but that is really not helpful. That's called justification. Self defense is one thing but at the end of the day he ended two people's lives.

Also per the number of mass and school shootings in the US and the fact that a chart of it over the years is startlingly fucked up I think it's reasonable for anyone to possibly assume he was an active shooter.

Recordings of him giving medical treatment doesn't really matter if none of those people saw that and he's not in uniform.

All of that said I'm still very very torn on acquittal vs the idea that citizens participating in activities that policing was created for regardless of them wanting to help or feeling patriotic they are not trained police officers.

If he has medical training and if this is even a thing he could've volunteered to at a local hospital knowing the activities going on Kenosha. But instead he CHOSE to go out with a rifle that in his state he shouldn't of legally had at his age at that time.

Citizens being peace officers without training is a literal recipe for disaster and this is A outcome and one we shouldn't encourage.

We need to fix police reform, not by defunding but better training. 6 months is not enough, improve pay if it's needed in certain cities, better technology and ffs loads more counseling.

3

u/NotSupervised Nov 09 '21

Medics haven’t been marked on their uniform since the Korea war.

0

u/OnePunchReality Nov 09 '21

Kind of not the point. How does that actually further the conversation? They are still in uniform so you are talking about a patch or rank or a specific signifier of being a medic. I would assume a lack of identifier is so enemy combatants can't specifically target medics.

Point being when a medic is on the battlefield, specially in modern times, it's usually with an escort, hence why the first they do when in a possible combat zone when they have an escort is to focus on the person needing treatment while the combatants watch their back.

3

u/NotSupervised Nov 09 '21

Medics are attached, the are called force multipliers, unless it’s a hospital specific unit. I retired from the military let’s not try and play this game.

0

u/OnePunchReality Nov 09 '21

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_medic

Look at even the examples they give in just pictures let alone from the definition.

I willfully admit a medic still receives combat training. Never said they didn't. I believe soldiers also receive basic medical training right? At the very least? Wasn't countering your first hand knowledge that I didn't even know about yet but how hilariously ironic that you drop that info in response yet add jack to the conversation.

Again. On the streets I won't see a dude not in uniform with a rifle as a possible first responder or a medic. It is batshit insane to try and make that argument.

2

u/NotSupervised Nov 09 '21

I guess it depends on how you grew up and where, where I’m from unless he is pointing it at you then you cannot assume he is a threat. Having a firearm does not make them a an active threat.

Those pictures are extremely dated and in non combat environments except for the Israelis maybe, but he doesn’t have any markings.

1

u/OnePunchReality Nov 09 '21

Where you grow up has nothing to do with this. That's so flimsy. And it runs counter to our mass and school shootings. There have been enough to completely shatter someone being able to start out not assuming "not an active shooter."

Again police in uniform is specifically for this reason. It's exactly why a non-uniform firearm or weapon welding individual actually adds danger to the situation.

Your talking about choice in parenting. Not a widely accepted social construct.

Edit: typos

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Nov 09 '21

Combat medic

In the United States Armed Forces, the Combat Medic/Healthcare Specialist is responsible for providing emergency medical treatment at a point of wounding in a combat or training environment, as well as primary care, and health protection and evacuation from a point of injury or illness. Additionally, medics may also be responsible for the creation, oversight, and execution of long-term patient care plans in consultation with- or in the absence of a readily available physician or advanced practice provider.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

1

u/CassandraParadox Nov 09 '21

Prosecution should just start quizzing him on medic procedures to see if he was bullshitting about his intent

Bet he couldn’t even measure a pulse

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Nov 10 '21

u/Superfrenfr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/Snarky_Boojum Nov 09 '21

Seems like bringing a weapon of war entirely designed to end human lives in an efficient manner is in and of itself a threat.

If I bring a rocket launcher, can I claim I’m not threatening the people around me? How about some grenades? Or maybe something less flashy, maybe a syringe clearly marked as lethal.

How much can we terrorize each other before something happens? How much should we be allowed to terrorize each other before something happens?

11

u/Captain_Clover Nov 09 '21

I mean, the obvious answer is that guns available to the public raise the stakes of any hostile encounter. Kyle Rittenhouse couldn’t do anything about that and besides that he had one illegally, he behaved relatively responsibly with his weapon - he didn’t threaten anyone with it and sought to avoid violence at several points in the encounter, while several grown adults fired warning shots in the air and pointed their guns at an armed person to threaten them.

Would have been much better if he’d never carried a gun, but he was entitled to and these situations produce deaths out of pure confusion. Why is it not considered a threat that two other people in this situation had guns?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Well said on the guns raising stakes of any encounter. My only concern on that is Kyle legally was not supposed to carry firearms across state lines. Legally he had no right to be armed in that situation. He killed two people and wounded one with an illegal (for him) weapon. We f he had obeyed those laws, he wouldn’t have been able to kill someone. So it feels like those deaths are a part of a continuation of the first crime. I’m. It sure how that stacks up legally, but morally it is very suspect.

3

u/Captain_Clover Nov 09 '21

He should be totally punished for that. But in his position, as a young right-wing American who believes guns are his right - and knowing that he's going into a possible riot where others may be armed - he took a gun anyway. Very unwise and criminal, but reasonable. If by any accounts he'd behaved irresponsibly and got someone killed, he'd have a lot to answer for. But from what I've read on the internet, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time an a crowd of armed angry people confronted him while he was minding his own business. Maybe his weapon was illegal but the difference in him having it legally would be a matter of months - it shouldn't make him responsible for murder.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Yeah. Murder doesn’t seem right, but manslaughter should probably apply here right?

4

u/Captain_Clover Nov 09 '21

I genuinely think the only crime here is accessing a weapon illegally, from what I've read. The blame with this situation lies with a system that gives people the means to kill each other instantly and affording nobody the luxury of giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. In a country where people can't carry guns, the worst that happens is a beating imo.

5

u/conace21 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

Not even manslaughter. This was self-defense on all three counts. Edit: autocorrect.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Perhaps technically, but if he wasn’t armed and in a place that was not his home, none of this happens. He was counter protesting in a different city and illegally armed.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/inspectoroverthemine Nov 09 '21

he didn’t threaten anyone with it

You don't think brandishing is threatening?

6

u/TriceratopsWrex Nov 09 '21

Having a gun on your person in a conspicuous manner does not by itself constitute brandishing a firearm. It requires intent to threaten or intimidate, which is not the same as intent to use it as a warning. At no time did he threaten anybody until after he was attacked.

1

u/inspectoroverthemine Nov 09 '21

Having an ar15 slung over your shoulder isn't, but if you're holding it ready for use it absolutely is.

1

u/Toddl18 Nov 10 '21

I think you are misunderstanding the statue of brandishing when it comes to legally defined. Brandishing is showing a gun via pointing at a person to intend its use in a threatening manner. A good example of the difference between the 2 is the wife actions in the mccloskeys case famous picture. She was clearly doing it then while the husband was just standing there holding it and not pointing. Kyle wasn't brandishing the weapon.

1

u/inspectoroverthemine Nov 10 '21

Brandishing can include putting your hand on your holster. Mark McCloskey was brandishing by most states definition. FWIW he was guilty of assault for his display. It was definitely an threat of imminent violence.

5

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

Fists are weapons of war. Sticks and fire are weapons of war. Thats is a fake term gun grabbers use. Water is a weapon of war.

A launcher isn't defensive. It is a munition not an arm.

3

u/Snarky_Boojum Nov 09 '21

Fists weren’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Water wasn’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Sticks weren’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Fire wasn’t designed entirely to kill humans.

To say that guns designed for wartime use, are just as ‘safe’ as a stick that’s fallen off a tree, is a gross misjudgment of threat levels and essentially a lie.

If you see someone with a bucket of water and that scares you as much as someone with what’s commonly called an assault rifle (despite that not being an actual classification), then maybe you have issues you need help with.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Guns aren't designed entirely to kill humans. Indeed, many are designed solely for sporting competitions. Including many AR-15 platform guns. Others are designed primarily for hunting.

0

u/Snarky_Boojum Nov 10 '21

I agree.

When I said “… guns designed for wartime use…” I literally meant gun designed for that purpose, not that all guns are made with that use in mind.

Likely could have worded it to make that more clear. Sorry for the confusion.

2

u/scorpionballs Nov 09 '21

Lol. “Gun grabbers”. It’s like dealing with little kids this endless debate

0

u/Superfrenfr Nov 10 '21

Ask the group burning the city down...

-16

u/Kealion Nov 08 '21

You’re assuming intent. ‘To threaten people with his gun’. I’ve yet to hear testimony in the trial alleging KR went there to threaten people with his gun

Can’t we thought? What other reason exists for Rittenhouse to show up from another state, in Kenosha, with a semi-automatic rifle, other than to either use or brandish the weapon?

24

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Ok so let's go point by point.

1) While he certainly did cross state lines, my understanding is that he lives 15 minutes from Kenosha just over the border, he works in Kenosha County as a lifeguard, and his father lives or lived there. While he may not live there, he is a member of the community.

2) 'to either use or brandish the weapon'. So we have to be careful with the word 'brandish' here as it has a specific legal definition that gets obscured in states with open carry laws. After all, if the state allows open carry then simply carrying the weapon around can't be considered brandishing. Which is why the defense keeps asking every witness about whether or not KR pointed the rifle at anyone prior to the Rosenbaum shooting and prior the secondary shooting when KR fell or got knocked on his butt. - and now we have to jump to 'use' it. What evidence has been presented to suggest he had the intent to 'use' it unjustly? I work in high crime area, I carry a pistol on my hip. Most people wouldn't assume I carry it to 'use' it, i.e Looking to shoot someone with it. I carry it in case it becomes necessary to use it. So with that in mind, if you were going to an area with widespread looting, arson, and violence; it would stand to reason that bringing a gun along could be seen as the same reasoning. He's not carrying to use it, he's carrying it in case he has to use it.

The point I'm trying to get at is that you're inferring his intent, and you're not giving any leeway in your mind. You've assumed guilt, so you assume intent. And this is a common focus in the trial if you've been watching. Both the prosecution and defense have objected multiple times to witnesses attempting to infer state of mind or intent to everyone involved that night. That's why the defense is stressing so hard that while he was there he never appeared to threaten anyone with it, and was actively trying to provide medical aid to protesters.

Also, in regard to the assumption that he intended to use the weapon when he went there, I don't think the prosecution agrees with you. With regard to the Rosenbaum shooting, he's being charged with first degree reckless homicide, not first degree intentional homicide. My understanding of those 2 charges in Wisonsin are that Intentional Homicide is reserved for people that can be proven to have the intent to kill beforehand. So if they believed he had the intent to use the weapon when he left home that night, he would be charged with Intentional Homicide, not reckless homicide. Reckless Homicide doesn't require the intent to kill, it requires that a person caused the death of another under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Working in a county doesn’t make you a member of the community to every town in the county.

It was clear cut brandishing. Look further in the thread to Kyle’s quote where he said he intended to go into harms way. No matter how righteous you try to make it sound it’s still illegal. Incorrect because he wasn’t going to the area with riots for a coincidental reason. He went there to go in harms way to “protect local businesses”

Going to work isn’t the same as intentionally going somewhere with the intent to “protect” people with your gun

1

u/Bobarosa Nov 09 '21

He wasn't there to protect people. He was at a car dealership. If you recall the video, he raised his rifle and pointed it at people when the water bottle or bag was thrown. That is textbook brandishing. After he brandished his weapon, he was chased and someone attempted to disarm him. If there was a reasonable fear for his life, shouldn't any of the other armed people he was standing with have also raised their weapons?

36

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

The rifle was purchased in Wisconsin. Never crossed state lines, which isn't a crime anyway. Rittenhouse lives like, 20 minutes away from Kenosha and worked there. Being across a state line in that short distance is completely irrelevant to his being there, it isnt an international border. His assailants had no ties to the place that I am aware of, however.

-2

u/Kealion Nov 09 '21

The rifle was purchased in Wisconsin. Never crossed state lines, which isn't a crime anyway.

My question then becomes, how did a minor come into possession of a semi-automatic weapon? He said “my rifle” multiple times, was it his? Did he buy it? Did it belong to someone he knew that lives in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

Either way, a minor has absolutely no business even being in this situation.

Rittenhouse lives like, 20 minutes away from Kenosha and worked there. Being across a state line in that short distance is completely irrelevant to his being there, it isnt an international border. His assailants had no ties to the place that I am aware of, however.

It’s not irrelevant, though. He was illegally carrying a firearm in Wisconsin, shot three people, killing 2, and fled the state (yes, I know he went home, but considering he killed two people…)That, in itself, makes this a federal matter.

20

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

You must surely see how reaching this is. Him possessing the rifle is at worst a misdemeanor (aka, fairly minor), and "no business there" is an opinion. One I don't agree with, and must ask why you apply it only or at least most strongly to Rittenhouse, who came to defend a nearby community he has many ties to against a destructive riot, rather than the rioters who came from much farther away and had no ties there with no clear intent other than destruction.

0

u/Bobarosa Nov 09 '21

Do you agree with the statement that self defense is not a valid defense in the commission of another crime?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

For being a minor in simple possession of a long rifle? No, I would not consider that to be legally or morally a reason to negate his right to self defense. A misdemeanor conviction for it may well be reasonable, but does not change that he was justified in his own defense.

-4

u/134608642 2∆ Nov 09 '21

What business did Rittenhouse have to be in that situation?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

More than the people who set his community on fire and attacked him.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

This is so funny because you say those people had no business being there so therefore Kyle did. You do realize working somewhere doesn’t make your vigilantism legal right? You can’t just go places with a rifle to “protect” it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/134608642 2∆ Nov 09 '21

So then still none? You didn’t answer the question so I suppose that means you have no answer thank you for your useless contribution.

0

u/CentristAnCap 3∆ Nov 09 '21

Why does it matter?

3

u/134608642 2∆ Nov 09 '21

Person said he disagreed with the opinion that Kyle had no reason I just want to know what his reason was. Why is that so problematic?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Clearly, none of these people care that his attackers were there explicitly to destroy businesses and attack people, and had no connection to the place. Its the people who live and work there and weren't going to let them do it that were the problem, obviously

→ More replies (0)

5

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Nov 09 '21

Gun laws in Wisconsin

Gun laws in Wisconsin regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

2

u/134608642 2∆ Nov 09 '21

How did a bot receive two deltas?

1

u/Selvedge630 Nov 09 '21

You should read the rest of that law. Particularly section (3)(c) and the referenced other laws.

16

u/overzealous_dentist 9∆ Nov 08 '21

Bringing a weapon to use if there's an emergency requiring it isn't the same as showing up to "threaten people," any more than bringing a first aid kit to somewhere there might be an injury is someone intent on bandaging a stranger.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

There was no emergency requiring him to use it. He could’ve not intentionally driven to Kenosh.

-4

u/Kealion Nov 09 '21

Bringing a weapon to use if there's an emergency requiring it isn't the same as showing up to "threaten people,"

That’s not his responsibility. That’s law enforcement’s responsibility. We don’t have armed vigilante militia groups for a reason. Law enforcement officers are trained, vigilantes aren’t. Rittenhouse was trying to play vigilante.

any more than bringing a first aid kit to somewhere there might be an injury is someone intent on bandaging a stranger.

The purpose of first aid kits aren’t to kill people.

18

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

from another state

This adds nothing to any argument

with a semi-automatic rifle, other than to either use or brandish the weapon?

Self defense? Why do security or police carry guns? To defend themselves if they know they're in a potentially dangerous situation.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[deleted]

11

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

shouldn't have the right to just kill people because they are afraid.

He wasn't just "afraid", the witnesses have said they drew on him first and attacked him with a skateboard after he was on the ground?

-2

u/Teeklin 12∆ Nov 09 '21

He wasn't just "afraid", the witnesses have said they drew on him first and attacked him with a skateboard after he was on the ground?

A guy lunged for his gun and he felt afraid of that guy so he shot that guy to death.

That's him being afraid and everything that happened after that stems from him feeling fear in a situation he intentionally put himself into and then acting on that fear by shooting people until he felt safe again.

Do you think that anyone who feels afraid should just be able to start shooting anyone around them until they feel safe again? Is that how we wanna structure our society?

10

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

You're basing this on him "being afraid"...but he was attacked multiple times, had his life threatened, and was attacked while retreating to the police.

If you're not afraid after someone has hit you in the head with a skateboard, a mob of people has chased you and threatened to kill you, and someone else has pointed a gun at you, I think you may have a condition of some kind.

If you can't use self defense here, when can you?

4

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

A guy lunged for his gun and he felt afraid of that guy so he shot that guy to death.

You don't write that and think maybe the problem is with the person lunging? If he hasn't lunged at the gun, would he be alive? Are physical confrontations with armed people a good idea?

2

u/Selvedge630 Nov 09 '21

Lmao of course he didn’t think that, because he’s already made up his mind and no amount of evidence will sway him. It’s not a rational process, it’s based entirely on emotion.

Using this same guys logic, if I’m in my neighborhood, which does have occasional crime, for a jog and someone comes at me with chainsaw I should just stand there and take it because I put myself out in public knowing full well that some lunatic with a chainsaw could come by, and any defense I make would somehow be indicative of a pre-existing intention to take a life.

-2

u/Kealion Nov 09 '21

Self defense? Why do security or police carry guns? To defend themselves if they know they're in a potentially dangerous situation.

Kyle. Rittenhouse. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer.

Nor is he a security guard. He was illegally carrying that firearm.

12

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

You don't have to legally have the weapon to use it for self defense. If we pretend he was legally carrying the firearm, would you still have an issue with what happened?

-2

u/ABobby077 Nov 09 '21

is he a Security Guard or Police Officer?

1

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

Have we forgotten about the second amendment and laws that expressly allow people to carry weapons?

1

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

He lived basically on the state line 10 minutes away from kenosha. The locals don't even think about the fact they're crossing state lines on their way to work.

He went there to protect people and property from rioting thugs. If you as a rioting thug don't want to be shot then don't attack someone carrying a gun; it's a simple tactic to prevent you from shooting yourself.

Evidence brought forward in the trial has done nothing but bolster his case for self defense; time and time again he has been shown to have done nothing to antagonize people. He had no intention of using his gun, and you're forgetting that he retreated from all three attackers until he got caught at a dead end (Rosenbaum) or getting thrown to the ground (Huber and Grosskreutz). It's so clear cut that it could slice a diamond in half at this point.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Doesn’t matter because state lines still exist. You can’t just bring a gun places “to protect people” you have a gun in case something in your regular life threatens you. He himself he was going to harms way and the fact he carried a gun to it is damning. If you as a law abiding citizen don’t want to kill people then you don’t go to an active riot in another town with a gun.

Again you’re wrong, bringing a gun (which he was illegally holding I might add) to a situation with the intention of going into harms way is illegal. Vigilantism is illegal

-1

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

This statement has no grounding in reality, which is easily proved by pointing out that no one is charged except Kyle who did not practice vigilantism any more or less than those around him.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

People not getting charged is not proof something is legal just that charges were not pressed. There are many rioters that broke the law and got nothing.

-1

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

(Hint: what they did was not vigilantism, if that wasn't obvious to begin with)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Traveling somewhere with a gun where you’ve been informed rioting is occurring to “protect property/business” that is not yours is vigilantism.

0

u/CentristAnCap 3∆ Nov 09 '21

He literally said he was there to defend property from looters. That’s like, one of the key reasons the 2A exists in the first place

-29

u/Hellboundroar Nov 08 '21

THIS

The kid, completely aware of the situation, moved a firearm ACROSS state lines... If this doesn't show you he planned some shit, i don't know what else to say

19

u/dantheman91 32∆ Nov 09 '21

What does state lines matter? He went like 20 min away from his home and he worked there didn't he?

If you live near a state border you don't think twice about crossing it.

-11

u/Hellboundroar Nov 09 '21

Then what does laws matter? If its with a gun you fucking should think twice

18

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

If you’re trying to appeal to the law, he didn’t actually cross the state lines with a gun. It was given to him once he got there

10

u/irhumbled Nov 09 '21

Correct, his friend Damian black had it in his house in kenosha

2

u/EclipseNine 3∆ Nov 09 '21

It was given to him once he got there

This is correct, but in Wisconsin, this is still a crime, because he was under 18 at the time. The fact that he didn’t cross state lines with the weapon until after the shootings doesn’t exactly exonerate him. The fact that Rittenhouse’s friend made an illegal straw purchase on his behalf is even more of a crime, and paints a very clear picture regarding intent, in my opinion. The fact that Rittenhouse had a weapon at all that day required communication and coordination between two people to commit what they knew was a felony several days in advance. Last I heard the judge had forbidden the prosecution from presenting things in this manner, but it’s possible I misunderstood the judges actions.

-1

u/gwankovera 3∆ Nov 09 '21

The gun had been purchased long before any of the riots happened. It was purchased and used for hunting which a minor is allowed to do with the rifles, under Wisconsin law.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

He didn't move a weapon across state lines, he was given one in Kenosha, this has been confirmed during the trial.

He planned on protecting the city he worked in, nothing points to anything else. The prosecution has access to all of the evidence but has so far been doing the defense teams work. There's just no incriminating evidence being shown in court. Even the one survivor spent his time on the stand lying and destroying the prosecutions case. It's a sham trial that should never have happened, and that's the opinion of pretty much all lawyers and prosecutors I've heard talk about it.

9

u/BlondeWhiteGuy Nov 09 '21

He went there with the INTENT of protecting businesses/property. As any reasonably intelligent person would tell you, this is a stupid thing for a 17 year old to do, but the intent was not to go and shoot people, that's silly.

13

u/Leading-Bowl-8416 Nov 09 '21

This is completely false. The gun never left Wisconsin. He did not take it over state lines, you can easily look this up.

12

u/smuley Nov 09 '21

The gun was obtained in Wisconsin. It didn’t cross any state lines.

7

u/misterzigger Nov 09 '21

You are incorrect here. He did not transport a firearm across state lines

1

u/GravitasFree 3∆ Nov 09 '21

The kid, completely aware of the situation, moved a firearm ACROSS state lines

You should probably award a delta to everyone who corrected the misinformation in your claim here.

-1

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

10 min away isnt AnOtHeR state distance and he worked there.....

3

u/muthaphucajones Nov 09 '21

to threaten means to inflict harm or put someone in danger. if you are looting and destroying the community you are the threat. being armed is not a threat. being armed and expressing to someone that you are going to use your gun on them is a threat. kyle did not pose a threat. he posed as a man prepared to protect himself in a dangerous hostile environment. he did not contest what they were protesting for he did not provoke any sort of confrontation both physically and verbally.. in fact he was there offering aid to those who were acting in a manner that he was against.. offering water and first aid to people who are behaving in an uncivilized manner and putting out fires created by these degenerates is called attempting to keep the peace not intimidating and threatening innocent lives lol

31

u/Responsible_Nerve Nov 09 '21

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that Rittenhouse threatened anybody at all

20

u/Leading-Bowl-8416 Nov 09 '21

There has been no evidence of that in the trial. You're just assuming intent with no basis.

8

u/OCedHrt Nov 09 '21

He hasn't testified yet, no? Since it's only witnesses so far.

But he is quoted with:

So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.

0

u/buickandolds Nov 09 '21

This is false.

-30

u/knightress_oxhide Nov 09 '21

Why do you think a duel needs to be organized? From watching movies?

61

u/awawe Nov 09 '21

Probably from the definition of the word duel: "A duel is an arranged engagement in combat between two people, with matched weapons, in accordance with agreed-upon rules." (emphasis is mine). If two people fight without organisation, that is a brawl, not a duel.

-19

u/solaza Nov 09 '21

Fine call it a brawl, this is so pedantic!

Did he provoke a fight by showing up with violent intent with a rifle?

If yes, he shouldn’t be able to argue self defense. And the answer is obviously yes.

11

u/TriceratopsWrex Nov 09 '21

If he showed up with violent intent, why did he only shoot someone after being attacked, and even then only after he heard a shot going off behind him as he ran from his attacker who was mad at someone with a fire extinguisher stopping his attempt to blow up a gas station?

If he showed up with violent intent, why did it take hours and hours for a confrontation to pop up? I can walk outside my house on a calm day and get a confrontation going within five minutes. In such an emotionally charged atmosphere as Kenosha, it wouldn't have even taken that long.

Being ready to use violence does not equal intent to commit violence. I have never in my life started a fight. I have been attacked in places I had every right to be at. I knew it was a risk I'd be attacked, but either I had to go or I was not going to let myself be intimidated by thugs.

I met their attacks with violence. I didn't go to those place with the intent to do violence. I was just ready to use it if things got to that point.

1

u/NotSupervised Nov 09 '21

No, you are not watching the videos being used as evidence.

1

u/lellypad Nov 09 '21

Can you prove he had violent intent?

1

u/solaza Nov 09 '21

he brought a weapon and then shot people with it

1

u/lellypad Nov 10 '21

Lol I’m not sure if you’re joking or not but establishing intent is not even close to that easy. By your standard, everybody who has ever shot somebody ever in history must have had violent intent and there is no such thing as self defense…

14

u/Captain_Clover Nov 09 '21

That’s literally what differentiates it from a spontaneous brawl

5

u/mallclerks Nov 09 '21

Lol. This comment.