Rittenhouse Trial Taught Us This

[eTorro]

Hello.

After doing some research, I've learned a lot about the Rittenhouse Trial.

"Kyle Rittenhouse, 17," declared the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had." Just stating it as fact. And then the entire national media followed suit and told us the same thing. 

The problem was it was a lie. In fact, under Wisconsin law, which apparently no one in any newsroom in America had even bothered to check, 17-year-olds are allowed to carry rifles as long as their barrels meet a minimum length requirement, and Kyle Rittenhouse’s rifle met that requirement. So no, Kyle Rittenhouse did not violate Wisconsin's gun laws. Today, even the prosecution at the trial was forced to admit that. And so immediately, the judge dismissed the firearms charge. 

Quote

JUDGE: Is it legal? 

PROSECUTION: It is not a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle. 

JUDGE: Either by the barrel or by overall length?

PROSECUTION: Correct. 

JUDGE: All right, then count six is dismissed. 

Oh, well, that couldn't be clearer. The prosecution is admitting in open court that it was legal. He had not committed a gun crime, and that means that for more than a year, Big Tech and its lackeys throughout our media have spread misinformation about Kyle Rittenhouse. Well, that's embarrassing. What are they going to say? Well, they're not going to admit it, Of course. They're going to make certain you don't learn about it.

Just minutes after the judge in the case dismissed the gun charge. YouTube, which is owned by Google, censored the video streams of several independent legal experts who were commenting on the trial in real-time. These were knowledgeable attorneys, many of whom were critical of the obvious weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

Now, hundreds of people were watching those streams. At the moment they were canceled, but over concern that Americans might conclude that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent, YouTube shut them down, citing policy violations. In other words, God forbid! — people think for themselves. That's not allowed anymore.

Edited November 16, 2021 by eTorro

[Leo Gura]

Is there not a federal law against a 17 year old owning or transporting a firearm?

Hard to believe there isn't.

That's not the real issue though. The real issue is that this trigger-happy right-wing kid needlessly went hunting for conflict and thereby created it.

[eTorro]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not the real issue though. The real issue is that this trigger-happy right-wing kid needlessly went hunting for conflict and thereby created it.

I would tend to disagree with you on that one, Leo!

You're using the "right-wing" label as if there's something wrong with being a right-winger.

There's nothing wrong with being a liberal or a conservative as long as you're an American.

[Tim R]

1 minute ago, eTorro said:

You're using the "right-wing" label as if there's something wrong with being a right-winger.

There's nothing wrong with being a liberal or a conservative as long as you're an American.

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The real issue is that this trigger-happy kid needlessly went hunting for conflict and thereby created it.

@eTorro Doesn't really make it better, does it? 

[Rilles]

The real question is... why the hell are you allowed to walk around with a rifle in public as a civilian. US gun laws are absolutely crazy. The system needs to change.

[eTorro]

10 minutes ago, Rilles said:

The real question is... why the hell are you allowed to walk around with a rifle in public as a civilian. US gun laws are absolutely crazy. The system needs to change.

"One rioter that knocked Kyle Rittenhouse to the ground, another smashed him in the head with a skateboard, and a third rioter drew a loaded pistol, which he was not allowed to have, unlike Kyle Rittenhouse and pointed it in Kyle Rittenhouse’s face."

@Rilles — you're mentioning only Rittenhouse here, not the 3rd rioter that had a loaded pistol. You seem bias towards a kid that all he wanted to do is to defend his community.

*We must not pick sides or condemn anyone; we must find out the absolute truth.

Edited November 16, 2021 by eTorro

[Rilles]

9 minutes ago, eTorro said:

"One rioter that knocked Kyle Rittenhouse to the ground, another smashed him in the head with a skateboard, and a third rioter drew a loaded pistol, which he was not allowed to have, unlike Kyle Rittenhouse and pointed it in Kyle Rittenhouse’s face."

@Rilles — you're mentioning only Rittenhouse here, not the 3rd rioter that had a loaded pistol. You seem bias towards a kid that all he wanted to do is to defend his community.

*We must not pick sides or condemn anyone; we must find out the absolute truth.

Youre missing the larger point. The problem is not the individuals, the problem is the culture. Carrying AR-15s in public spaces is endangering civilians. Is there a necessity for a young man to do that? We have law enforcement, and as far as I know there are no moose to hunt on the street.

This would have never happened if rifles OR handguns were more regulated.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Rilles

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, eTorro said:

as if there's something wrong with being a right-winger.

There is something wrong when you go hunting for people to shoot and then shoot a couple of them dead.

Rittenhouse was eager to shoot people by his own words. That's the problem with right-wing radicalization.

[Joel3102]

He’s almost certain to get off on self defence, there’s no real case for murder here.

He was sprinting away from the people chasing he, he didn’t really want to use the rifle. He only used it when someone got their hands on his gun and tried to take it. 

Having said that, he’s still an idiot for going there, and as a non American your gun culture is looked at as insane by everyone else

Edited November 16, 2021 by Joel3102

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, eTorro said:

"One rioter that knocked Kyle Rittenhouse to the ground, another smashed him in the head with a skateboard, and a third rioter drew a loaded pistol, which he was not allowed to have, unlike Kyle Rittenhouse and pointed it in Kyle Rittenhouse’s face."

Would he even have been attacked in the first place if he wasn't flaunting a handheld weapon of mass destruction?

[Epikur]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Would he even have been attacked in the first place if he wasn't flaunting a handheld weapon of mass destruction?

Would he been there in the first place if there were no 'peaceful protestors' who were allowed by the 'fascist' police to go wild ?

The creativity regarding truth is amazing with the media
 

Proof The Young Turks KNOWINGLY LIED about Kyle Rittenhouse

[DocWatts]

If someone knocks on your door, waving around an assault rifle 'asking' to be let in, it's not really a question at that point.

Likewise, if someone drives to an incredibly tense protest in another city, open carrying a weapon with the intention of enforcing vigilante justice, that person has intentionally put themselves and others in a situation where someone is likely to be injured or killed. He was looking to escalate an already tense situation, and unfortunately he succeeded 

Third degree or negligent homicide (aka manslaughter) would be the appropriate sentence.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to see Rittenhouse himself as a victim of the toxic Right Wing gun culture in the US, any more than it would be to see a 17 year old kid living in a inner city who was indoctrinated in to a gang as a victim.

[Rilles]

3 hours ago, Epikur said:

Would he been there in the first place if there were no 'peaceful protestors' who were allowed by the 'fascist' police to go wild ?

Its not the job of a lone gunman to stop violent protestors, its law enforcement. I really dont get why you need to defend it, do you have to defend this nutjob to be Right Wing or something? You know you can be Right Wing without defending everything they defend right? You can divsersify. I for example am a Left Winger but I dont agree with the burning and looting of buildings... Wow amazing right?

[Mason Riggle]

4 hours ago, Epikur said:

Would he been there in the first place if there were no 'peaceful protestors' who were allowed by the 'fascist' police to go wild ?
 

This sounds as if you believe he was forced to go there because of what was going on.  "If it weren't for those protesters, Kyle would have just stayed home."   Did he not have other choices? 

Maybe if he wasn't "just tryin' to be famous'" he wouldn't have been there in the first place. 

Maybe if he had just followed the city-wide curfew, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. 

Maybe if he wasn't pretending to be an EMT, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. 
(Wisconsin Legislature 946.70(1)(d) - whoever impersonates an emergency medical responder, as defined in s. 256.01 (4p), with intent to mislead others into believing that the person is actually an emergency medical responder is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.)

 

[roopepa]

I don't think people should be talking about if he is guilty or not.

What should be talked about is what the actual fuck is a teenager boy doing with assault rifles, thinking they are protecting businesses during protests?

Think about how insane that is. The entire social system is responsible for these deaths. A 17-year old boy should not be carrying assault rifles. Not even pistols. Of course people are gonna freak out when they see a teenager carrying a death machine during unrest.

Look at that image.

[eTorro]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Would he even have been attacked in the first place if he wasn't flaunting a handheld weapon of mass destruction?

The rioters should have not been there in the first place, looting businesses, breaking cars, and burning up multiple buildings.

Social stability is Paramount. Don't destroy private property.

Don't riot.

Don't loot.

Don't unleash chaos.

Edited November 16, 2021 by eTorro

[Mason Riggle]

5 minutes ago, eTorro said:

The rioters should have not been there in the first place, looting businesses, breaking cars, and burning up multiple buildings.

Social stability is Paramount. Don't destroy private property.

Don't riot.

Don't loot.

Don't unleash chaos.

^what does any of this have to do with Rittenhouse injecting himself into a dangerous situation while brandishing a weapon?  Was 17 year old Rittenhouse under some kind of obligation to maintain Social stability in a neighboring State that I'm unaware of? 

 

[Tim R]

26 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Was 17 year old Rittenhouse under some kind of obligation to maintain Social stability in a neighboring State that I'm unaware of? 

@Mason Riggle Well, that's kinda the main argument why he was there... But the answer is of course "no, he had no business being there." 

I think he just wanted a legal reason to shoot somebody. 

Quote

At the time of the Kenosha unrest, Rittenhouse, then 17 years old, had participated in local police cadet programs, and had expressed support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement and law enforcement.[47][6][48] At the time, Rittenhouse lived in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles from Kenosha.[19][6]

Rittenhouse and his friend Dominick David Black "armed themselves with rifles" and went to Kenosha to help defend a car dealership business.[49] The auto business had been badly damaged during the first two nights of unrest[50] and had suffered $1.5 million in arson damage the previous night.[50][51] 

There were conflicting accounts as to whether Rittenhouse and Black's help was requested. The dealership owner's sons denied that gunmen had been asked to defend the business,[52][53] but several witnesses testified that armed individuals had been asked by the business to protect their property.[52] When Richie McGinniss, a reporter for The Daily Caller, asked Rittenhouse why he was at the car dealership, he responded: "So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit." At some point, Rittenhouse left the dealership and was prevented by police from returning.[54]

 

[Terell Kirby]

I predict a slap on the wrist for Kyle Rittenhouse. 

Trials like these shows us how bias and emotions are still much at play in our judicial system, mainly influenced by media and culture.

Truth be told is Kyle is too innocent looking to get seriously reprimanded. He also a young white male.

We should all reference the case of Brock Allen Turner, a 19 year student athlete convicted of rape but only served 3 months of a 6 month sentence.

Rittenhouse fits the same profile.

[Mason Riggle]

12 minutes ago, Tim R said:

But the answer is of course "no, he had no business being there." 

 

 

This is all you really need to know about the case.