US teenager, Kyle Rittenhouse, cleared of murder

I could not agree more with your assessment, Splinter . How could this jury find him acting in self defense, when (after his mother bought him the automatic weapon designed for killing people) this guy left his home state with the weapon, to go to the site of a demonstration so he could kill people with whom he didn’t agree — but then felt so threatened by demonstrators that he had to shoot them IN “SELF DEFENSE?”

This is a perversion of justice.

So let's see if I get this straight. A convicted sex offender tries to kill Rittenhouse who is trying to put out a fire while defending a car dealership from rioters. A second man tries to break Rittenhouse's head open with a skate board while a third man tries to shoot at him. All three men Rittenhouse shot were ex felons. Rittenhouse is aquited of all charges and the judge is a Democrat appointed by a Democrat and yet Rittenhouse is the bad guy .

What am I missing?

Leftyhunter

I'm not too sure of the case, but it seems like rioters were damaging property and threatening him

What in the world was this teenaged automatic weapon-toting vigilante doing, going to another state to look for someone to shoot? He created the situation that caused him to fear for his life, and then - - guess what? He feared for his life and got to shoot up three guys.

I don’t care about the pedigrees or rap sheets of the dead victims (nor did he have that information). No one drafted him as a law enforcement officer. He may well have fit in to the Wild West of the 19th century, but in the 21st century, private citizens aren’t supposed to get their Mamas to drive them to a state where there is a conflict so they can use their brand new killing toy.

Rittenhouse was not a vigilante as the owners of the car dealership begged for protection as the Kenosha police were unable to protect the people and property of Kenosha. The Governor of Wisconsin despite days of rioting failed to mobilize the Wisconsin National Guard. Rittenhouse didn't punish criminals as he saw fit but lawfully protected himself per Wisconsin state law. Yes it does matter that ex felons did try to kill Rittenhouse but as the British said " scored own goal". The District Attroney spent eight days arguing that Rittenhouse violated the law when per the jury Rittenhouse did not. Citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals especially if the police can't or won't.

Leftyhunter

I agree it was a case that that never sould of been filled band was only done so for political reasons. The MSM lied quite a bit about the case.

Leftyhunter

I haven't been following the story but it seems to be yet another US gun related debacle....probably won't have to wait long for another. Nowt ever changes.

The only thing that has changed in the gun story is the new, conspiracy-theory-fed denialism, i.e., “the Sandy Hook school shooting never happened, but was an invention by the evil Mainstream Media.”

Oh yes, and the apotheosis of killers as martyrs.

Quote from Leftyhunter

So let's see if I get this straight. A convicted sex offender tries to kill Rittenhouse who is trying to put out a fire while defending a car dealership from rioters. A second man tries to break Rittenhouse's head open with a skate board while a third man tries to shoot at him. All three men Rittenhouse shot were ex felons. Rittenhouse is aquited of all charges and the judge is a Democrat appointed by a Democrat and yet Rittenhouse is the bad guy .

What am I missing?

Leftyhunter

Thank you Leftyhunter for stating, the truth. It is idiotic that Rittenhouse was even their, but he was attacked first, by a mob that had no right in what they were doing.

A question for those who have followed the story. Was he legally allowed to carry the gun and use it to defend himself? If so then that seems to be the problem in this case.

Quote from Splinter

Yes, a seventeen years old is legally allowed to wander the streets of Wisconsin with a loaded AR15, unbelievably.

Try that in most other countries and you'd be shot on sight.

Nuff said!!

This has remined me of a young chap who was a trainee of mine years ago in Milngavie. Hell of a nice 17 year old, always willing to do what I told him without any of the moaning and groaning his fellow trainees used to do. One Monday he failed to appear and his fellow trainees informed he'd been lifted for murder. After I mentioned he didn't seem the type they told me he was a 'maddy' when he hit the booze.

He was eventually convicted of murder and put away for many years. He had used a knife rather than a gun.

Splinter ,

My bad. The District Attroney should never of filled charges against Rittenhouse especially in light of the video evidence but did so strictly for political reasons to appease the BLM movement and hopefully prevent new rioting in Kenosha.

Leftyhunter

Quote from Rice

The only thing that has changed in the gun story is the new, conspiracy-theory-fed denialism, i.e., “the Sandy Hook school shooting never happened, but was an invention by the evil Mainstream Media.”

Oh yes, and the apotheosis of killers as martyrs.

Not sure what Sandy Hook has to do with Rittenhouse. The video clearly shows Rittenhouse acted in self defense. Yes the US has a loony right which denied the Sandy Hook shooting especially by Alex Jones. One can be against the Looney Right and still aquit Rittenhouse and not be a supporter of Trump and associated causes. No doubt many or most of the jurors on the trial were Democrats as Democrats do well in urban Wisconsin. In recent presidential elections especially the last one Wisconsin votes for the Democratic Party Candidate for president but not always by a huge margin.

Leftyhunter

Here’s the next chapter to look for, in the never ending saga of US gun violence: closing arguments tomorrow in the Georgia case of the three men on trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Two of them chased him as he jogged down a road, and the third videotaped the action.

Although they had the shotgun and they chased him, they are now claiming self defense, saying that Arbery tried to get control of the gun they were carrying.

Just as in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the trial raises questions of how self-defense laws will hold up in these shooting cases where the shooters suddenly “fear for their lives” when they see that the hunted could turn the tables on them.   Or maybe they fear for their lives when faced with prison sentences.

I haven't followed this much but seems there are no winners here, only losers. Just because a auto dealership begs for protection, why does a 17-year-old from another state feel compelled to answer that call? Why is a 17-year-old allowed to carry the gun he did (UK Man is correct, yet again guns are the problem in the US)?

If you put a weapon like that in a moron's hands, when other moron's come and attack him, he will use it. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

Either way you cut it, guilty or not, law or not, this kid is now a killer and must live with that for the rest of his life.

Good summary of the situation, Semigoodlooking .

And if the kid has a conscience or any kind of moral compass, he will always feel the sting and shame of what he did.

More likely, he will be sucked further into the dark vortex of those who laud vigilantism, and he will mistakenly cling to the acquittal as exoneration. In certain circles, he is already being hailed as a hero.

Down us up, night is day, black is white. We are, after all, in the era of ‘alternate facts.’