The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Soupnazi630]

He was running away because he just shot some guy 4 times for throwing a plastic bag at him.

Wrong you moron.

He was running after having shot a man who attacked him and tried to reach for his gun which IS a lethal threat justifying lethal force in self defense.

You are an idiot who knows nothing about this issue

 

[jbander]

Link?

You are a idiot
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
CHECK OUT PART B because the guy pimple boy got the gun from is in big shit right up to his neck. SO IT IS THIS COMMENT PROVING THAT YOU ARE WRONG THAT GETS ME KICKED OUT OF THE THREAD??????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Q-anon bullshit,

Let’s just stick with discussing the topic, shall we?

You don't have a clue whether pimple boy knew something was thrown at him.

Which means YOU don’t know that he did, correct?

I’m basing my opinion on the video evidence which shows that Rittenhouse had his back to Rosenbaum and running away from him and also on the fact that the bag never came into contact with Rittenhouse; it missed him entirely.

You did see this in the video, yes? If so, on what basis do you deduce that Rittenhouse knew the bag was thrown at him and that this was why he shot Rosenbaum?

Show me where Rosenbaum tried to take the gun away q=anon.

There were powder burns on Rosenbaum’s hand. The autopsy proved this.

What a pile of shit from everyone of you. One more time. If after killing the first guy if the man with the gun would have just killed pimple boy then he wouldn't had been shot and the second guy wouldn't have been killed. That would make me a lot happier , I would rather see pimple boy dead then the two others that tried to stop him. Hell then the court hearing would have come up with the same not guilty for murder of Pimple boy. That's then justice.

All of this only serves to suggest that you don’t care about the loss of life, only about whose loss of life.

 

[longly]

No one won or lost here; the trial was not some war or political contest; it was about justice. The only thing that won was the concept of self-defense which should be universal. My Lord, even cats, and dogs have the right to defend themselves. So get a grip; why should this child be arrested and face life in prison for defending himself. There should be certain principles that we all can agree on, and it would seem that self-defense would be one of them. No one should have to take a beating that only empowers thugs. Just because someone is stronger than you does not give him the right to beat you; if you believe that they do, you should believe that an abusive husband has a right to beat his wife because he’s bigger than her.

Here is how I would apply the principle: If a husband is beating his wife and she stabbed him, and he survives. He is charged with assault and battery; she faces no charges because it’s not a crime to defend oneself.

 

[jbander]

Let’s just stick with discussing the topic, shall we?


Which means YOU don’t know that he did, correct?

I’m basing my opinion on the video evidence which shows that Rittenhouse had his back to Rosenbaum and running away from him and also on the fact that the bag never came into contact with Rittenhouse; it missed him entirely.

You did see this in the video, yes? If so, on what basis do you deduce that Rittenhouse knew the bag was thrown at him and that this was why he shot Rosenbaum?


There were powder burns on Rosenbaum’s hand. The autopsy proved this.


All of this only serves to suggest that you don’t care about the loss of life, only about whose loss of life.

Why because I would rather see just pimple boy dead instead of the three he shot and the two he killed. So tell me that powder burns in this situation says that he was trying to grab the gun. Not even close hot rod.

 

[Meister]

You are a idiot
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
CHECK OUT PART B because the guy pimple boy got the gun from is in big shit right up to his neck. SO IT IS THIS COMMENT PROVING THAT YOU ARE WRONG THAT GETS ME KICKED OUT OF THE THREAD??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Seems legal experts thought this law was ambiguous and open for interpretation. As written those under 18 couldn't go hunting....in Wi.

He believed the jury could only convict if prosecutors proved the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle was less than 16 inches and has an overall length shorter than 26 inches.
The AR-15-style rifle Rittenhouse used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third is 35 inches long with a barrel length of 16 inches. Under defense questioning, a Kenosha police detective said he believed the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 was standard size.


Schroeder acknowledged the statute was confusing, likening it to the infamous Roman Emperor Caligula’s posting new laws high upon a column so his citizens could not study them.
“I‘m still trying to figure out what it says, what is prohibited,” Schroeder said Friday before making his final decision. “Now I have the good fortune of having some experience and a legal education. How is your ordinary citizen supposed to acquaint herself with what this law says?”
Legal experts agreed the statute is poorly worded, but said the legislature’s intention was to give teenagers the legal right to hunt as long as they weren’t using short-barrel rifles or sawed-off shotguns. The judge could have recognized that fact and allowed the jury to consider the charge, said John Gross, director of the Public Defender Project at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
“I think the legislature just did a bad job and you have really, clumsy awkward wording,” Gross said. “But it would seem clear that this was about hunting and not about giving 17-year-olds the right to open carry.”

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse

A Kenosha County judge handed a huge win to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense team before closing arguments when he dismissed a misdemeanor gun charge against the teen. Legal experts had considered …

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[Soupnazi630]

They went after pimple boy because they took one look at him and said this guy shouldn't have a gun , he is going to kill someone. The video and Pimple boy himself said that that he was never touched by the first guy he shot. His lawyer said that someone tried to take the gun away from him. that means shit. There is nothing that says or shows that someone tried to take the gun away from pimple boy. Prove me wrong , If this is so simple . Instead of q-anon bullshit stick to the facts and show us how someone tried to take the gun away from pimple boy.

It seems like I've been thrown out . So I'll respond to the person who threw me out here. He had gun residue on his hands from trying to put his hands out in front of himself, like everyone does when some one is going to shoot them point blank. You think my answers are bad so you threw me out . You said the three that pimple boy shot were rioters not even the defense said that bullshit. They were protesting. Rioters are when you try to bring down our democracy to force in a piece of shit for a dictator. Big big difference.

Wrong.

They never said any such thing like this " Jbanderzitfacedpunk looks like he will kill someone". ROsenbaum attacled him because Rittenhouse helped put out an arson fire.

It was not his lawyer it was TWO firsthand witnesses who sqqw him try to take the weapon adn they are supported by video evidence.

Nothing anyone has said has anything to do with this Qanon crap which you are obsessed with.

They were rioters perios and that is proven fact

One more time moron Rittenhouse did not need to be touched. Touching is not necessary when one is defending oneself from someone who is attempting to take ones weapon.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Does this verdict encourage vigilantism? Are we going to see more people carrying guns at places of violence and riots, or even peaceful protests? If so, then one might assume there will be shootings and killings; the next time it could be a future kid like Rittenhouse who dies. The case may have turned out the way it should have given the specific facts, but what are the ramifications? More people with more guns.

Disagree, BLM showed up in my town over a statue, when they realized most the citizens were armed, they never got off the bus. When law abiding citizens use guns the correct way, actual gun violence comes down. Every time a Chicago, Detroit, or St Louis thug comes here looking for trouble, they go home in a body bag.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well, if someone throws a bag at you, is that justification for shooting someone?

He didn’t shoot when the bag was thrown, he shot when Rosenbaum attempted to take his weapon from him.

Rittenhouse likely was not even aware the bag was thrown at him anyway. His back was to Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum threw it and it missed Rittenhouse entirely.

Should we look at reasonable force and if so, what is it?

Reasonable force is anything that will stop your attacker, especially if you don’t know your attacker’s intentions.
Rittenhouse had no idea why Rosenbaum was after him and further, had no idea what harm Rosenbaum was prepared to do.

Did Rittenhouse deserve to be attacked? No. But the issue I have is that if I put myself in danger deliberately, it's not that I DESERVE what I get if it goes wrong, but the consequences are partly my own.

We can just as well say that Rosenbaum placed himself in a volatile and potentially violent situation. What’s more, we know from video evidence that he is the one who escalated the situation in the first place.

Maybe Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse because he was just playing a game, a childish, stupid game. Is there any evidence Rosenbaum had any intention of hurting people?

Unless Rittenhouse had some way of knowing this, it is irrelevant.

Rittenhouse was not afforded the luxury of time to contemplate Rosenbaum’s motives. All he knew was that this man chased him and, for lack of any other information, had no choice but to assume the guy meant him harm.

Maybe Rittenhouse had no choice to fight, but again, what is reasonable force?

Anything that will stop this whacko from hurting and possibly killing me.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

If another black man wasn't killed senselessly you're right nothing would be going on things would be peaceful normal.

And we all know that BurningLootingMurdering brings 'em back from the dead.

 

[Jarlaxle]

On code simply means "You have to be on our team. You can't be out there helping the negroes. You have to assist in oppressing these negroes"

That's why they (Those whites who shittenhouse shot) were shot because they was not "on code"

Are you on some sort of drugs?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Prove it bullshitter.

Judge dismissed the charges because the gun was legal. Therefore, you are (as usual) full of shit.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Well, that's conversation over, isn't it?

Yeah, the entertainment only lasts so long before it becomes tedious.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why because I would rather see just pimple boy dead instead of the three he shot and the two he killed. So tell me that powder burns in this situation says that he was trying to grab the gun. Not even close hot rod.

Powder burns on his hand means his hand was close to or in contact with the muzzle when the weapon was fired.

It’s not rocket science. Besides that, witnesses testified that Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You posted this hypothetical, "You think if he'd have been black that he'd have gotten off? I doubt it."
It wasn't about race.

Haven't we already done this? Do we just go around like dogs chasing their own tails?

 

[Stann]

No they forced him to kill others. He was in retreat attempting to get police help.

Just like he was forced to be there. He took this upon himself, he should have been prepared, he wasn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He didn’t shoot when the bag was thrown, he shot when Rosenbaum attempted to take his weapon from him.

Rittenhouse likely was not even aware the bag was thrown at him anyway. His back was to Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum threw it and it missed Rittenhouse entirely.


Reasonable force is anything that will stop your attacker, especially if you don’t know your attacker’s intentions.
Rittenhouse had no idea why Rosenbaum was after him and further, had no idea what harm Rosenbaum was prepared to do.


We can just as well say that Rosenbaum placed himself in a volatile and potentially violent situation. What’s more, we know from video evidence that he is the one who escalated the situation in the first place.


Unless Rittenhouse had some way of knowing this, it is irrelevant.

Rittenhouse was not afforded the luxury of time to contemplate Rosenbaum’s motives. All he knew was that this man chased him and, for lack of any other information, had no choice but to assume the guy meant him harm.


Anything that will stop this whacko from hurting and possibly killing me.

Or perhaps Rittenhouse does know, but then goes and say "self defense" and people want to believe. Isn't that part of the problem?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Or perhaps Rittenhouse does know, but then goes and say "self defense" and people want to believe.

We have no basis on which to assume he knew what Rosenbaum intended once he had Rittenhouse cornered.

Isn't that part of the problem?

Part of what problem? It’s only “part of the problem” if we assume (as you apparently do) that Rittenhouse knew beforehand that Rosenbaum meant him no physical harm but shot him anyway and that anyone and everyone who agrees that it was self defense only do so because they want to believe it.

That’s quite a stretch and posits factors and elements that go far beyond what the video reveals.

The video shows one man chasing another and then attempting to take his weapon from him. The man being pursued then finds himself cornered. The choice is clear at this point that the man being pursued can let the pursuer take his weapon and possibly use it against him, or otherwise cause him harm and injury, or he can defend himself.

For me, the choice is obvious, unless I simply don’t care what happens to me: put the ************ down.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Just like he was forced to be there. He took this upon himself, he should have been prepared, he wasn't.

He should have been prepared for what, some asshole assaulting him for extinguishing a fire?

 

[Stann]

They attacked, he defended himself. Simple as that.

It doesn’t matter that they were trying to stop him from shooting others, Rittenhouse had no way of knowing this. All he knew was that people were trying to cause him harm so he defended himself.

Situations like this are fluid and confusing and in the heat of the moment, intents and motives are unknown. Everyone involved is fueled by fear, adrenaline, emotion and instinct.

Grosskreutz and Huber did not know that Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse unprovoked and Rittenhouse did not know that they didn’t know this. All he knew was one guy chased and attacked him for no apparent reason so he shot him. Then another group of people are chasing him and assaulting him for no apparent reason.

As much as you and others would like to paint this as a case of a white supremacist evil punk indiscriminately shooting people, it is just not that simple. There were other factors at work here that cannot be attributed to any one person.

Why did the judge forbid so much on Rittenhouse, like the photos of him with those Proud Boys; what he said to rile up these protesters, etc. etc. the jury only heard one side of the story.