Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.
— I like sushi

No, the guy he shot who survived admitted he'd pulled a gun on him. This alone can't acquit him. For instance, of the murder of the two unarmed men. — Kenosha Kid

I never said it did. Why you focused on that puzzles me given that I gave a blow by blow account of what I learnt from watching the trial directly after those two sentences.

or every single thing he did that night was heroic — Miller

I never said it did. Why you focused on that puzzles me given that I gave a blow by blow account of what I learnt from watching the trial directly after those two sentences. — I like sushi

You claim the witness said he was not guilty. That is untrue.

1. It seems fairly obvious (to this non-American, at least) that verdicts like this one are an inevitable byproduct of a society which has normalised both the carrying of guns and the ideology that the right to guns for self-defence is inalienable. I mean the constitution literally talks about the need for militias. So why surprise when a 17 year old wants to playact being in a militia and ends up shooting people?

2. Less obvious and perhaps more technical is that the prosecution didn't have to go after a murder charge here and could conceivably have pinned Rittenhouse on a lesser offence. Once witness testimony began to poke big holes in the prosecution's case, there was too much doubt to convict. Prosecutors overcharged and underproved.

Of course people are upset. No justice has been done. But who expects justice in the USA?

You claim the witness said he was not guilty. That is untrue. — Kenosha Kid

The witness admitted he was shot in self defence. That is basically the same as saying (in that instance) he wasn’t guilty. I didn’t mean to imply he said anything about his guilt regarding the deaths.

It was a pretty clear cut case as I tried to outline in the post you picked those first sentences from. Even clearer for anyone who bothered to watch a significant proportion of the trial - which is how I know what I am saying isn’t due to newsreel clips, chat show parading or social media comments (some of which are scarily absent of the most basic facts and others of which perpetuate blatant lies at both ends of the spectrum).

I’d rather people move to discussions of how to address people being shot by poorly trained police officers for next to no reason. It is clear enough in the US that simply complying with the police as much as possible isn’t always going to end well.

Can you see a future in the US where police officers carrying firearms is unusual? I think that would be the ideal to work towards but I’ve no idea how that can be achieved anytime soon nor what the incremental steps towards it would look like. A starter would be addressing police training and who is allowed to openly walk around with guns.

In the country I was born I have never seen a police officer with a gun. In fact I cannot ever recall seeing a gun in that country other than on TV.

I guess you might have a certain view of what a ‘hero’ is that I don’t — I like sushi

Ya my view of a hero is batman, and yours is robin hood.

say you're told to kill as many as possible, would you grab the plaintiff's skateboard or Kyle's rifle? — Outlander

I would rather be alive in jail then dead.

false analogy, kyle lowered his weapon when the criminals backed off.

Because it has to opposed in some way? My view of a hero is actually more like batman than robinhood. I think true heroes knowingly and purposefully cause themselves pain, distress and suffering (at extreme levels) to help/protect/further others.

Robinhood was aimed more specifically at tyranny. I wouldn’t complain strongly about him being framed as a hero but he doesn’t quite fit my rigid definition.

The first shot fired was by a pursuer and Rittenhouse shot back 2.5 seconds later. It was entirely self defense.
— Hanover

That doesn't even match Rittenhouse's testimony. — Kenosha Kid

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580073-detective-shot-fired-before-rittenhouse-began-shooting%3famp

knowingly and purposefully cause themselves pain — I like sushi

Like a cop does.

The witness admitted he was shot in self defence. That is basically the same as saying (in that instance) he wasn’t guilty. I didn’t mean to imply he said anything about his guilt regarding the deaths. — I like sushi

But you did say that. And, no, the paramedic did not say he was shot in self-defence. He said he had a gun pointed at Rittenhouse and thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Which of course he was.

It was a pretty clear cut case — I like sushi

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

This cognitive dissonance was imposed by the judge. By instructing the jury to only factor in R's testimony as to his own headspace, there was no room for logic, or rather no means by which a breach of logic could be a barrier to an unjust acquittal. The jurors were forbidden from considering the fact that R's second victim had more reason to suspect R -- who had a gun -- would shoot him in cold blood than that [EDIT] second victim -- who had no gun -- would shoot R. The armed R didn't even need to feel threatened by his unarmed victim (i.e. the jury did not need to make sense of that), he merely had to claim that he did. Since nothing but his claims could be considered, the judge ensured a prejudiced jury, and an inevitable miscarriage of justice.

The defense is obviously preposterous. Consider a terrorist being acquitted with the defense: "I detonated the bomb I planted in the building, but only because I was worried they'd find it and blow my house up with it." Stupid, no? But exactly the same kind of stupid as: "Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."

Wow! Okay bye bye.

R had a guardian the night he killed those men who also chaperoned him to and from his murders. — 180 Proof

...which is undoubtedly the most fucked-up aspect of this case. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

My point with this, however, is that no sensible person can regard R, and conclude that "this is a child", guardian or not...whether he is under the authority of his mother or not.

. It seems fairly obvious (to this non-American, at least) that verdicts like this one are an inevitable byproduct of a society which has normalised both the carrying of guns and the ideology that the right to guns for self-defence is inalienable. I mean the constitution literally talks about the need for militias. So why surprise when a 17 year old wants to playact being in a militia and ends up shooting people? — coolazice

The protestors were armed as well. The first guy who got shot was next to a person who shot a handgun as they charged him and the third guy who got shot admitted on the stand he has his pistol pointed at R's head when he got shot. The other person shot was wrestling him for his gun on the ground.

There was insanity on the streets to be sure (literally, actually, as the 2 dead had histories of mental illness), but R didn't commit a crime. He's an idiot no doubt though.

. Less obvious and perhaps more technical is that the prosecution didn't have to go after a murder charge here and could conceivably have pinned Rittenhouse on a lesser offence. Once witness testimony began to poke big holes in the prosecution's case, there was too much doubt to convict. Prosecutors overcharged and underproved. — coolazice

The jury did consider lesser charges.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/12/jury-rittenhouse-lesser-charges-521226

Namesake guardians i.e. no guardians? — TheMadFool

You raise an important issue. So-called "guardianship", the essence of which is authority, is a paper tiger within the context of modern American society. At one time in more traditional, and frankly patriarchal societies, one's father had immense authority over nearly every aspect of his children's lives, an authority having a direct relationship with social class. For instance, if the judgement came down that "you will not marry that young man/woman", then unquestioning obedience was expected by all in society, and that expectation was informally enforced by immense socio-cultural pressure. Within American society, because of both cultural decay and the unwarranted interposition of the state into the private sphere regarding family matters (think DSS), all of the germane aspects of the aforementioned socially stabilizing relationship have been stripped away, leaving only the insubstantial form..a shell without substance. Today, what was once a relationship of near absolute authority has become no more than advisory. Because in American society only the law is assumed to have the power of command (save in the military context), what was once the command of a parent has become no more than the advice of a mentor. This is, in my view, unfortunate as it has a degenerative cultural effect.

Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it." — Kenosha Kid

Bullets has just been fired, so your insistence that R just opened fire on a peaceful civil rights crowd doesn't reference this case. They were also trying to stomp his face in.

Again, R's arrival as a counter protestor before a volatile mob brandishing a military grade firearm in order to protect the streets was stupid as shit and it cost lives, and almost his own. The world is worse off for his presence that day.

An apt analogy would be if I choose to wander the poorest gritiest part of town drunk wearing a Rolex, money falling from my pockets and then complaining I got robbed. Sure, robbery is robbery, and I acted legally and they acted illegally, but I'm a screaming dumb ass.

Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."
— Kenosha Kid

Bullets has just been fired, so your insistence that R just opened fire on a peaceful civil rights crowd doesn't reference this case. — Hanover

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim.

Again, R's arrival as a counter protestor before a volatile mob brandishing a military grade firearm in order to protect the streets was stupid as shit and it cost lives, and almost his own. The world is worse off for his presence that day.

An apt analogy would be if I choose to wander the poorest gritiest part of town drunk wearing a Rolex, money falling from my pockets and then complaining I got robbed. Sure, robbery is robbery, and I acted legally and they acted illegally, but I'm a screaming dumb ass. — Hanover

Two violent criminals are dead. I'd say the world is better off for his presence that day. Who knows what other violent crimes those two would have committed in their lives. Just look at the Wisconsin parade killer.

Actually, a more apt analogy would be more like chasing and attacking an armed individual while you are unarmed, or out-gunned.

Two violent criminals are dead. — Harry Hindu

Since when does defending yourself against an active shooter make you a "violent criminal"?

:up:

:100:

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people — Kenosha Kid

Then R must be color blind because all three people he shot were white. What evidence do you have for this claim? Someone with a "D" next to their name told you?

The jurors were forbidden from considering the fact that R's second victim had more reason to suspect R -- who had a gun -- would shoot him in cold blood than that first victim -- who had no gun -- would shoot R. The armed R didn't even need to feel threatened by his unarmed victim (i.e. the jury did not need to make sense of that), he merely had to claim that he did. Since nothing but his claims could be considered, the judge ensured a prejudiced jury, and an inevitable miscarriage of justice. — Kenosha Kid

Stupid. People that think there is an active shooter typically run from the scene, not towards the active shooter. What did he expect to accomplish running at a man with a gun, if not to get shot?

Just like the men in the Aubury case, call the police if you see something, or think something is going down. Don't try to get involved. At most, follow the man so that you can report his whereabouts to the police. Anything above and beyond that is considered vigilantism. So the guys attacking R where more of a vigilante than R was. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can you see a future in the US where police officers carrying firearms is unusual? — I like sushi

Not until there are far, far fewer guns in the hands of the public, so never. It is true that there has been a militarization of police departments in the United States, but it was already true that it would be hard to find any place on earth, outside of a warzone, where so many people are so well armed.

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

How many black people did he shoot? And why would you assume their skin-color?

I didn’t know there was so much right wing nonsense on this forum. I think he is innocent purely on a legal technicality. He did this to protect private property that wasn’t his on behalf of someone who testified under oath that they never actually asked them to show up. This is coming mere days after a video shows KR expressing the desire to harm people he believed to be vandals, saying “I wish I had my fucking AR, I’d start shooting rounds at these people.” They were MAYBE looting, or else just putting something in their car, when he expressed the desire to murder them. This context was not admitted into the trial at all, the jury was entirely ignorant of it.

The prosecution, however, was an absolute disaster. The whole trial was a farce. They made so many bizarre blunders it’s a wonder they graduated law school at all. They pressed charges for first degree reckless homicide and first degree murder, neither of which were easy, both have an extraordinarily high bar legally for the state to prove. Never should have pursued some of those charges, they had enough to get a jury to convict him on reckless endangerment and the gun charges. They fucked it up.

He showed up with a rifle he wasn’t legally allowed to carry (this law was confusing and gun charges dismissed by judge, in my opinion completely incorrect interpretation of the hunting provision of the law). He was illegally possessing this rifle, and it was illegally obtained through a straw purchase by his friend who did so despite knowing the illegality of it and that KR wasn’t legally allowed to possess it in the state until he turned 18. He then utilized this weapon to defend himself costing two lives and severely injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, who in my opinion is exceptionally brave and heroic.

However, the jury doesn’t say what the law should be, and they don’t get to give their moral opinions. They interpret the law and assess the evidence. That is all. Under Wisconsin law in the USA, what the videos show give him a clear self defense case when charged with first degree murder, there is plenty of reasonable doubt, especially considering he ran away and didn’t shoot two individuals who backed away with hands raised.

Overall he’s a wannabe gravy seal cop loving right wing proud boy type generally awful person engaging in vigilantism, and he acted in a way that created the situation that otherwise wouldn’t have existed, and bears some responsibility. But he isn’t the Vegas shooter, either. It’s a complex and nuanced case, and the prosecution’s ineptitude resulting in him getting off completely free is highly worrisome in the precedent it sets. Far right counterprotesting vigilantes will use this as an excuse to antagonize people while heavily armed and plead self defense once they provoke some hostile action, then shoot everyone in the crowd who tries to disarm them, thinking they’ll get off. Very dangerous precedent. However, this wasn’t really the jury’s fault. Blame cops, the judge and prosecution, the US justice system as a whole, the way the laws are written in so many states in the US, blame Rittenhouse too, and Rosenbaum if you want. But the jury had no choice but to issue a not guilty verdict.

I’m very concerned for the near future of protests in the United States.

Brilliant! Reminds me of The Day Today and Brass Eye.

Then R must be color blind because all three people he shot were white. What evidence do you have for this claim? Someone with a "D" next to their name told you? — Harry Hindu

That he took a machine gun to a protest against police murdering black people? That the group he approached with said gun was largely black? That said, I did cause a mispeak in my edit. I originally wrote "shoot people". So to clarify, he "did shoot people".

Stupid. People that think there is an active shooter typically run from the scene, not towards the active shooter. What did he expect to accomplish running at a man with a gun, if not to get shot? — Harry Hindu

And they chased him even after he proved his willingness to murder people by stopping his retreat to shoot Rosenbaum. Stupid, right, if self-preservation should override concerns about an armed murderer running about crowded streets. But maybe, just maybe Harry, these people are better than you and would risk their lives to try and disarm a murderous lunatic with a machine gun.

I was talking about his second victim. — Kenosha Kid

The second person had knocked him to the ground, beating him in the neck with a skateboard and was wrestling his gun away when shot.

The second person had knocked him to the ground, beating him in the neck with a skateboard and was wrestling his gun away when shot. — Hanover

He was trying to get R's gun off him after R had just threatened a crowd and shot a man, yes. R's defense was that he felt, if his gun was seized, he'd be shot with it. The judge had instructed the jury to consider only R's described perspective, and not whether R had good reason to believe that his assailant had good reason to disarm him.

That he took a machine gun to a protest against police murdering black people? That the group he approached with said gun was largely black? That said, I did cause a mispeak in my edit. I originally wrote "shoot people". So to clarify, he "did shoot people — Kenosha Kid

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read the facts. Instead it's just a continual correction of your factual errors.

What data do you have that the Kenosha protest was mostly black?


Kenosha is 80% white.

It wasn't a machine gun. Are you now arguing he was spraying the crowd with an automatic rifle, as if those are actual legal?

Two violent criminals are dead. I'd say the world is better off for his presence that day. Who knows what other violent crimes those two would have committed in their lives. Just look at the Wisconsin parade killer. — Harry Hindu

No, neither deserved death if justice were served in a deliberate way. That is, had they not been shot, they would have faced some charges, not none deserving terribly long sentences, and certainly not death.

Saying the self defense was justified is not equivalent to saying he got his just dessert.