General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKyle Rittenhouse was never on trial for causing harm with a deadly weapon
His victims were on trial. They were tried for being threats to a boy with a gun.
They were found guilty and the sentence of death was ruled justified.
Butterflylady
(3,863 posts)When the judge said they could not be called victims, that was the end of any justice for them.
elias7
(4,158 posts)Makes no sense that this should be ok. Someone needs to be responsible for this. Rittenhouse was a minor and ignorant, perhaps the problem lay with the Kenosha PD who allowed him to be there and enabled his actions.
gopiscrap
(24,094 posts)maxsolomon
(34,529 posts)He's the one that permitted the straw-purchased MSSA to be stored in his gun safe, he took it out of the gun safe when rioting started so it was "handy", he failed to prevent Kyle from retrieving it from his house that evening.
Dominick Black is facing charges for straw-purchasing a firearm for Rittenhouse. He's the only one that will pay a price.
Beyond the stepdad, I don't know which Parents you're blaming for what. Wendy Rittenhouse didn't buy the gun and didn't drive him to Kenosha. Her ex-husband has been a cipher this entire time.
jaxexpat
(7,435 posts)From alpha to omega. LEO was/is the problem.
KPN
(15,970 posts)sundry other public services and goods over the past 5 decades and we can't defund the police again?
jaxexpat
(7,435 posts)Really can't imagine an elected official who ran on defunding LEO anywhere but deep blue areas and they generally have fewer law enforcement problems already.
KPN
(15,970 posts)hell -- regulation in its entirety, social security, "gub'mint", taxes which in conservative speak simply means defund or cut them.
Polybius
(16,878 posts)Had they not done this, none of this would have happened.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Person or persons on trial. That's the whole point.
Paladin
(28,598 posts)yardwork
(63,398 posts)Threats by low-life criminal lefties (insert even worse descriptors here) who had the nerve to protest against police brutality and got what was coming to them.
That's the way much of white America views this case.
llashram
(6,269 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(50,296 posts)Fla Dem
(25,198 posts)KPN
(15,970 posts)Equomba
(197 posts)I would imagine those who were raped by Rosenbaum twenty years ago, children at the time, have had some uneasy moments with him being in the headlines over the past year. Hopefully, had they blocked this out of their memory all this time, they have pursued professional help as a result.
dalton99a
(83,327 posts)"But look at who he shot!"
"A child molester!"
"And Antifa!"
"There is no way I'm going to convict that kid"
"Me neither"
"Nope"
"Heck no. He didn't do anything wrong"
"We can't ruin that young man's life over this"
"But we're supposed to discuss this"
"Yeah, the judge said we have to talk about it"
"Right. Let's get to know each other"
"Ok, what are you gonna do for Thanksgiving?"
"I hate to cook"
"Did you ever try fried turkey?"
...
dchill
(39,721 posts)Polybius
(16,878 posts)"How does he do it, he's ugly!"
FakeNoose
(34,770 posts)All the hoopla around Kyle Rittenhouse tainted the Kenosha jury pool before they were even selected. There's no way the jury could have given an impartial (or even sane) verdict on that trial. But the ham-handed judge was totally unprofessional from Day One. He reminded me of Judge Ito, playing for the TeeVee cameras.
marieo1
(1,402 posts)Oh, my, how true!!
Bettie
(16,756 posts)if the protest was so violent, why are the only people who died Kyle's victims?
Jon King
(1,910 posts)Fact is the jury had no choice with the bizarre wording of the laws there. The law is that for self defense the jury has to decide what the person using self defense was thinking, not the standard of a 'reasonable person' like in other states.
So the jury had to look at it from a 17 year old kid being chased by a group of angry people and how that kid would react. I know it makes no sense, but that is the law there. Without a reasonable doubt too....so a scared kid reacted like he did is impossible to say no without reasonable doubt.
And the law is worded to allow him to carry that gun due to its barrel size. He did not buy it either.
So literally he committed zero crimes as bizzare as that sounds.
KPN
(15,970 posts)situation he was in with the forethought of acquiring and bringing an AR-15 to the scene for exactly hat purpose. Seeing it any other way is what makes no sense. He did exactly what he had the forethought to do. That's exactly what he was thinking.
Response to KPN (Reply #20)
KPN This message was self-deleted by its author.
Amishman
(5,680 posts)Which is valid as 939.48 (2) (c) does state that a provoking action done with intent to cause bodily harm cannot claim self defense.
The problem is the prosecution came nowhere near proving that intent to the degree needed. The videos and witnesses backing up that KR did provide aid and did out out fires gives a counter argument that he really was there for those purposes.
On the other hand, other than the 'just trying to be famous' TikTok blurb, there was little to refute that narrative - other than simply judging him on character, which is not sufficient in a criminal trial. There wasn't enough specific evidence to prove that intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
hydrolastic
(511 posts)Dreampuff
(778 posts)Strap a gun to yourself and go out hunting.
KPN
(15,970 posts)outcome of the trial, this will follow and haunt him throughout the remainder of his life.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)He will relish it for part of his life, along with the rightwing praise. The later half of his life will be when he really starts going over it and realizing it was all avoidable.
Initech
(101,120 posts)And it was to send a message - don't fuck with the far right white supremacist gun nut cult. Or we will come for you.