Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[GGizmo]

I just watched the footage again. I can see why its gone to court. But he should be found not guilty of all charges in my opinion.

If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.

It's obvious the mob was out to cause destruction.

 

[StriderX]

I just watched the footage again. I can see why its gone to court. But he should be found not guilty of all charges in my opinion.

If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.

It's obvious the mob was out to cause destruction.

His life wouldn't have been threatened if he wasn't there, perhaps he should have let the police do their jobs instead of wasting their time instead.

 

[Jono8]

And don't forget there is video of that guy chasing Rittenhouse with his weapon drawn.

Yes, after he had just shot and killed an unarmed person.

I thought the mantra in the US was to use your god given right to a weapon to help take down active shooters/threats?

 

[Jono8]

If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.

Oh so as long as you "feel" you were under threat, you can just shoot unarmed people then?

That's a pretty awesome get out clause for any murderer.

 

[C Kent]

His life wouldn't have been threatened if he wasn't there, perhaps he should have let the police do their jobs instead of wasting their time instead.

That's the point isn't it, the police werent doing their job which is why you had a bunch of civilians making sure businesses and private property weren't burnt to the ground.

Yes, after he had just shot and killed an unarmed person.

a person that was chasing him and was intent on causing harm to him because he had the audacity to put out a fire that the rioters had started..

I thought the mantra in the US was to use your god given right to a weapon to help take down active shooters/threats?

Don't be silly

 

[Jono8]

The active shooter idea doesn't hold any water. An active shooter would be shooting, and wouldn't be showing restrain in defending themselves.

? He killed two people and seriously injured another.

 

[i-bert]

I think a few of you are in the wrong thread. This is a common sense area. The speakers wet corner is over there.

 

[Jono8]

Don't be silly

Oh so it isnt?

So, none of the people that had just saw Rittenhouse shoot and kill a man should have done anything about it?

 

[C Kent]

Oh so it isnt?

So, none of the people that had just saw Rittenhouse shoot and kill a man should have done anything about it?

A person that was heading to police in the process of surrendering? No.

You'd have to be a complete ******* idiot to take an armed person on with nothing but harsh language and a skateboard

 

[Jono8]

A person that was heading to police in the process of surrendering? No

Ah, so you are saying that the people should have just left it to the police to deal with?

 

[ianh]

Oh so as long as you "feel" you were under threat, you can just shoot unarmed people then?.

Yes you can.

That's a pretty awesome get out clause for any murderer.

No.

You get arrested, go to trial and have to prove to a jury that your reasons for shooting those unarmed people are justified and its for them to decide to agree/disagree with you and you're either free to go or sent to jail.

Its very simple tbh, not sure why it's so hard to understand, it's basic "law" stuff - you do something, you go to court for it, you're found innocent or guilty - pretty basic really.

 

[Jono8]

No.

You get arrested, go to trial and have to prove to a jury that your reasons for shooting those unarmed people are justified and its for them to decide to agree/disagree with you and you're either free to go or sent to jail.

Its very simple tbh, not sure why it's so hard to understand, it's basic "law" stuff - you do something, you go to court for it, you're found innocent or guilty - pretty basic really.

I agree. Therefore the comment "If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.", isn't true is it.

 

[C Kent]

Ah, so you are saying that the people should have just left it to the police to deal with?

Good attempt at some sort of gotcha, but it's already on record that the mayor had told police to not interfere with the rioters. Totally different circumstances compared to an 'active shooter' heading towards the authorities with the intention of handing himself over.

 

[Jono8]

Good attempt at some sort of gotcha, but it's already on record that the mayor had told police to not interfere with the rioters. Totally different circumstances compared to an 'active shooter' heading towards the authorities with the intention of handing himself over.

It isn't different at all. It just highlights yours and many others ridiculously transparent bias in this thread. It was OK for Rittenhouse to take the law into his own hands and kill someone because he perceived his life was under threat, but it wasn't ok for anyone else to feel the same way and act in trying to disarm him (which in turn naturally led to Rittenhouse killing more people)?

You are all very confused.

(Also, you think its plausible to just take someone's word for it that they are going to hand themselves over to the police in a heated situation like this? Lol. "you just killed someone and still are parading around with your rifle" - "yeh but its fine because im just off to hand myself into the police. See you later guys!".

 

[p1RATE]

I just watched the footage again. I can see why its gone to court. But he should be found not guilty of all charges in my opinion.

If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.

It's obvious the mob was out to cause destruction.

I'm new to this case but this is the opinion i have formed too.

 

[C Kent]

It isn't different at all. It just highlights yours and many others ridiculously transparent bias in this thread. It was OK for Rittenhouse to take the law into his own hands and kill someone because he perceived his life was under threat, but it wasn't ok for anyone else to feel the same way and act in trying to disarm him (which in turn naturally led to Rittenhouse killing more people)?

You are all very confused.

You seem to be the one confused, Rittenhouse felt his life was under threat because he was chased by the 1st guy - didn't follow the livestream of the trial before yesterday but from what I recall the 1st individual that died was throwing rocks and had concrete / rocks in a bag that he was threatening Rittenhouse with, and then there was a gunshot sound just prior to him being killed. The 2nd dude then tried to stave his head in with a skateboard and lastly bicep guy tried to shoot him. All 3 instances were initiated by people not Rittenhouse.

 

[Jono8]

You seem to be the one confused, Rittenhouse felt his life was under threat because he was chased by the 1st guy - didn't follow the livestream of the trial before yesterday but from what I recall the 1st individual that died was throwing rocks and had concrete / rocks in a bag that he was threatening Rittenhouse with, and then there was a gunshot sound just prior to him being killed. The 2nd dude then tried to stave his head in with a skateboard and lastly bicep guy tried to shoot him. All 3 instances were initiated by people not Rittenhouse.

Again, you are completely disregarding that after he shot and killed the first unarmed man and retained use of his rifle, he is then perceived as a threat to the lives of others in the vicinity.

We're they not allowed to try and protect themselves from a perceived threat to their own life or is only Kyle allowed to kill people he thought were going to hurt/kill him?

 

[Skunkworks]

Again, you are completely disregarding that after he shot and killed the first unarmed man and retained use of his rifle, he is then perceived as a threat to the lives of others in the vicinity.

We're they not allowed to try and protect themselves from a perceived threat to their own life or is only Kyle allowed to kill people he thought were going to hurt/kill him?

If you believe the active shooter story I’ve got some magic beans you may be interested in purchasing.

 

[steve45]

Again, you are completely disregarding that after he shot and killed the first unarmed man and retained use of his rifle, he is then perceived as a threat to the lives of others in the vicinity.

Only after being chased and threatened by him. Regardless what weapon/or lack of the other guy had Kyle was still well within his rights to defend himself. You also have to remember seconds before there were gunshots in the very near vicinity. I think its very easy to understand that Kyle would have thought his life was in very real danger.

We're they not allowed to try and protect themselves from a perceived threat to their own life or is only Kyle allowed to kill people he thought were going to hurt/kill him?

There is an argument to say they have the right to protect themselves from an imminent threat just as kyle was. However, Kyle wasnt running at these people, he was trying to extract himself from the situation/danger. this mob was trying to do the opposite. I personally think Kyles actions that night were just. Him being there in the first place was questionable, but had the police been doing there job he wouldnt have had any reason to be there. Kyle having the rifle... Well if this is indeed against the law, then that should be addressed. As far as I see it that is the only thing he should answer for.

 

[Jono8]

If you believe the active shooter story I’ve got some magic beans you may be interested in purchasing.

If you believe that Kyle was being completely non confrontational and never threatened or pointed his gun at anyone before it kicked off, so just randomly got targeted, then I have some even more expensive magic beans to sell you.