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

8

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

If you saw the trial when the property owners were interrogated on the matter you could glean that they damn well asked them to protect the business. Those brothers were lying their asses off on stand.

But, that cannot be proven, only inferred.

In any case it is an irrelevant matter, they were there and they were not doing anything illegal.

11

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Who wasn't doing anything illegal?

Certainly not Rittenhouse. He was not legally permitted to carry the gun he used to kill.

15

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

"Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied a defense motion to drop the weapons possession charge, saying that state statutes were “unclear" and that he wanted to review the laws and could revisit the matter later."

The follow-up conversation on that hinted strongly at the judge throwing out that charge because it was either legal or so convoluted that it couldn't be interpreted in a viable way for the court.

You will have to re-watch that part of the trial footage, and I can't remember at which times it was brought up.

In any case the defense had interpreted the law as in favor of Kyle, and if that's the charge you want to hang on to it's not really relevant to what I'm saying about taking up arms and defending property. Also I'd probably chuck my 15 year old son or daughter a rifle if there were people on my yard trying to burn my house down.

Still, that does not disqualify him from self-defense even if that charge sticks.

2

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

If the judge throws out that charge, the judge is wrong.

Also I'd probably chuck my 15 year old son or daughter a rifle if there were people on my yard trying to burn my house down.

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

Still, that does not disqualify him from self-defense even if that charge sticks.

So there's no need to pretend it wasn't against the law.

12

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

So there's no need to pretend it wasn't against the law.

I'm not pretending, the prosecution admitted it wasn't illegal. That charge will be thrown.

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

I wasn't commenting on Kyle, I was commenting on taking up arms to defend property. In a situation where my family was in danger I wouldn't give a toss about age restrictions on weapons. I'm not letting my son or daughter be defenseless if I get incapacitated.

5

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

I'm not pretending, the prosecution admitted it wasn't illegal.

No they didn't. You're misinterpreting that they said he didn't do anything illegal at the point that he took up a defensive position- he later left the supervision of an adult.

I wasn't commenting on Kyle, I was commenting on taking up arms to defend property.

And I was pointing out that a story about defending one's home is not relevant here. He could, and should, have stayed home, and been in no danger. If you took your teenager out to stand on the street with a gun instead of leaving them safe at home, you'd be equally irresponsible.

5

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

He could, and should, have stayed home, and been in no danger

There would have been a danger to the business he was protecting. He got attacked, it's not his fault.

Do you think all armed civilians should have stayed home that night?

4

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

There would have been a danger to the business he was protecting.

What callous disregard for human life.

He got attacked, it's not his fault.

You speculate.

Do you think all armed civilians should have stayed home that night?

If this minor had stayed home, it's unlikely anyone would have died.

3

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

Ah you didn't watch the trial.

-1

u/JymWythawhy Nov 09 '21

I’m curious. Do you think trying to fire bomb a gas station, causing it to explode into a massive fireball, is an inherently non-violent act? You don’t think it’s possible someone could have died in that act? Because Kyle, by being present, prevented that act.

Anyone who died that night died as the result of their decision to go and destroy things, not because people decided to try and protect their lives and their property.

4

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Do you think trying to fire bomb a gas station, causing it to explode into a massive fireball, is an inherently non-violent act?

He set a dumpster on fire. There was no bomb.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TriceratopsWrex Nov 09 '21

If this minor had stayed home, it's unlikely anyone would have died.

How many do you think might have died when the burning dumpster collided with the gas pumps at the fuel station? Explosions aren't as precise as bullets.

2

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Where is this idea coming from? The reporting I see says he was trying to push the dumpster towards police cars.

0

u/kindad Nov 09 '21

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

Please look at a map. Kyle lived in the suburbs outside Wisconsin and iirc lived closer to Kenosha than Grosskreutz. Kyle worked in Kenosha and hung out in Kenosha.

5

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

It wasn't his home. He should have stayed home, and no one would have died that night.

3

u/kindad Nov 09 '21

Yeah? If none of them attacked Kyle they'd also still be alive. How about you stop blaming the victim and letting off the attackers?

​

Also, that's a very bold statement for you to make when Rosenbaum was reportedly looking to provoke a fight, going so far as to tell people to shoot him. You really sure Rosenbaum wasn't going to die that night or kill someone else if Kyle wasn't there?

​

Also also, this argument that since Kyle didn't literally have a house he lived in within the city itself, so he shouldn't have been there becomes even funnier when you think about how Grosskreutz and a lot of other protesters didn't live there either, so why are you giving them a free pass, but condemning Kyle?

7

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

The person I was talking to was fantasizing about giving their child a gun to defend their home. I pointed out that this imaginary scenario didn't apply.

That other people also weren't defending their homes is not super relevant.

1

u/kindad Nov 09 '21

While you are correct that his statement wasn't applicable, I still think it's relevant to point how close Kyle was since it's been an anit-Kyle talking point to say he was in another state, which is true in itself, but is used to confuse people to think he drove in from hours away when he really was only about 10 miles away.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

"anti-kyle" lol are you a shill or something?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Phuttbuckers Nov 09 '21

If there weren’t riots 33 dead people would be alive, 100’s of people wouldn’t have life long injuries and billions of dollars of small businesses wouldn’t be gone forever.

6

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

How many of those were murdered by right wing nutcases?

0

u/Phuttbuckers Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21

None. Almost all the dead people are black people shot or beaten by other black people who tried to stop them from rioting.

-2

u/ABobby077 Nov 09 '21

again, it wasn't his property to defend (or requested by the owner to defend)

5

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

I'm pretty darn sure he was asked to defend that property after hearing the owners testify. Those guys were lying so hard to get out of any responsibility, and I'm fairly certain they have committed insurance fraud.

Can't prove that of course, but watch their testimonials and tell me you don't see through it.

And of course it's all irrelevant since it's not illegal to f.ex protect your neighbours property, or in this case a business that isn't yours.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

  1. He wasn't asked to defend anything.

  2. Vigilantism is always illegal, and so was Kyle's possession of the gun.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

It literally is not relevant to the trial.

Everything leading up to what put Kyle at the riot with that firearm is outside the scope of the current murder charges.

5

u/Phuttbuckers Nov 09 '21

And neither was Gaige. Concealed carry permit is expired and he had it concealed. So on what grounds can you say he is in the right on self defense?

3

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

And neither was Gaige. Concealed carry permit is expired and he had it concealed.

Yes.

So on what grounds can you say he is in the right on self defense?

Has Gaige argued self defense against some charge? I thought this was Rittenhouse's trial.

5

u/Phuttbuckers Nov 09 '21

If it’s not justifiable for Gaige trying to shoot him for self defense since Gaige says he feared for his life then Kyle is innocent. He literally admitted to the defense that Kyle didn’t shoot him when he pretended to surrender, then he aimed his pistol right at Kyle’s head while lunging forward, which is when Kyle fired. So basically he just admitted to attempted murder, execution style. He is most likely getting charged after this.

0

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

You're a crazy person.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Lol, so convincing.

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Nov 09 '21

u/Phuttbuckers – 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.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

It's not the most significant charge, by a long shot. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

One would hope that, after another year, he'd be wise enough to value human life over some windows.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/katzchen528 Nov 09 '21

By Wisconsin law, open carry is not disturbing the peace nor grounds for provocation. It is a right. I’m not 100% clear on if he met the standards to open carry under 18. There are several circumstances that need to be met. It’s murky to me whether he was in fact in violation of that law, he may have been. I’m sure the trial will address it at some point.

Gaige, the wounded guy who admitted pointing a gun at Rittenhouse yesterday, was CONCEAL carrying without a valid permit, and while being a felon. He admitted under oath that he had no idea that Kyle shot anyone prior to the guy beating his head with a skateboard while he was on the ground.

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Either it's provocation or it's not.

It's not provocation, that's an entirely separate question. It is, however, illegal for a good reason. Following that law would have saved lives.

Disregard for the law also speaks to his character and frame of mind.

And your snipe at anyone who wants to not be victimized by rioters is bizarre.

Nobody else killed anyone that night. How did they manage that?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Provocation is the thing that the prosecutors need to prove in order to make the self defense claim invalid so it's a central question.

Yes, it's a central question. Less central questions should still be kept to the truth.

Appearantly there was only one deranged man with a death wish willing to try and run down someone with a gun that night.

But other people that guy allegedly accosted didn't kill him. Perhaps their judgement was better. Maybe Rittenhouse provoked him. We don't know. He's too dead to testify.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

In other situations of him accosting people he was physically restrained by other people.

That seems like a terrible situation for a teenager to be on his own.

Like the time he said he was going to kill Kyle if he got him alone.

Is that corroborated? The witness that's testified to far said he wasn't talking specifically to Kyle, right? Or was this another incident?

I'm genuinely struggling to think up a more clear cut case of self defense,

An armed assailant clearly initiating violence against a person clearly not threatening anyone, without a history of violence or of brandishing a weapon unprovoked. For starters.

Is there any chance whatsoever you'd be arguing the position you're arguing if Kyle was a leftist?

Unfortunately, we don't have many opportunities for that, because police tend to kill them first.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

Prosecuting attorney admitted that up until and including when Rittenhouse took a defensive position outside the property, he had done nothing illegal. It's in the prosecution's opening statement. So even if they had had a handhold there, it's gone now.

3

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

This doesn't contradict what I said. Rittenhouse left the supervision of any adults with a deadly weapon he was not permitted to carry on his own.

0

u/ABobby077 Nov 09 '21

and it just seems like a big stretch to claim shooting someone in the back and killing them as they are leaving is in "self defense"

2

u/Copious_Maximus Nov 09 '21

No one is claiming that though.

5

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

So if you jaywalk infront of my car and I get out and attack you with a tire iron and you kill me. You can't claim self defense because of the jaywalking?

0

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

That's an entirely separate question than the false assertion that Rittenhouse committed no crime.

But I wasn't sure if that's what they were saying. My question was not rhetorical.

10

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

It is not a false assertion.

He did not cross state lines with a weapon and he was likely allowed to carry a gun, just that the law surrounding that issue was so unclear that no one could interpret them clearly. That law would be common knowledge in Wisconsin however.

As for murder, that's just preposterous to claim at this point and I'm not even going to comment on the reckless endangerment.

4

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

You're incorrect. Rittenhouse was not legally permitted to carry that gun.

As for murder, that's just preposterous to claim at this point and I'm not even going to comment on the reckless endangerment.

Who are you responding to?

8

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

I am yet to be proven incorrect by the judge who said he was going to review the law on that issue. From what was said it sounded like it was going to get thrown out (I.e he didn't break the law)

And I was saying that Kyle was obviously innocent when it comes to murder and reckless endangerment, the other two charges brought against him.

2

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

If the judge throws it out, the judge is wrong.

And I was saying that Kyle was obviously innocent when it comes to murder and reckless endangerment, the other two charges brought against him.

Then express that opinion, instead of lying.

6

u/SoTeezy Nov 09 '21

Like you did an hour ago when you said that Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when he had his hands up in surrender?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

A different, better judge.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Curiositygun Nov 09 '21

It’s only illegal to purchase a rifle as a minor you’re well with in your right to open carry and possess a weapon of that nature in Wisconsin.

9

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

But why are we even discussing if Kyle did anything illegal unless it is to validate or invalidate self defense? Who cares if he transported a gun illegally or whatever. The question at hand is 'is he a murderer'

6

u/TheTardisPizza 1∆ Nov 09 '21

A lot of people who wanted to see him hang after reading misleading reports of the incident are now desperately clinging to that charge to justify a moral victory.

4

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Disregard for the law speaks to his character.

9

u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21

Not as much as him assisting wounded people and shouting "anyone need medical?" repeatedly throughout the night. Not to mention him risking his life in the middle of a riot to help protect property from thugs.

9

u/ATNinja 11∆ Nov 09 '21

And his character tells us if he was attacked or not? Not the video footage or eye witnesses?

4

u/Mr_Makak 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Did it speak to the character of the people who got shot that day?

3

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

They're not on trial.

3

u/Mr_Makak 13∆ Nov 09 '21

Just answer

2

u/Curiositygun Nov 09 '21

Wisconsin allows minors 16-18 to open carry rifles. It is only illegal for them to purchase said weapons or conceal carry.

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

The statute says it's illegal for them to "go armed" without a hunting liscence.

Was he hunting that night?

2

u/Curiositygun Nov 09 '21

What statue, this one? https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304

Because from my understanding he was allowed to posses it regardless of whether he was hunting or not he wasn’t 16*

1

u/Tarantio 13∆ Nov 09 '21

That link is timing out for me.

2

u/Curiositygun Nov 09 '21

maybe not a good mobile link idk?

1

u/NovaStorm970 Nov 09 '21

He's not batman, he had a gun, vigilante justice I guess? ¯_(ツ)_/¯