Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

It's interesting to note that of the 4 people who attacked him that night, the only one he didn't hit is believed to be a "POC"...

Edit: And the one who attacked him first, starting the chain of events, had been shouting racial slurs earlier in the evening.

---

Yes, An Issue is Definitely Gun Control And The Laws
in Wisconsin that Have Loop Holes Allowing Children

Who Are Not Old Enough to Vote

To Carry AR-15's Into Peaceful
Protests That Have Been Known

to Become Violent Riots;

To Become Enforcers

Of the Laws of the

Country Up to

Death With No

Official Capacity to Do So;

Yet Of Course, This Is Only Common

Sense, You Don't Hand Out Weapons of

Law Enforcement to Quarreling Immature

Children on the Playground And Expect to

Get "A Good

Look"

From That
Ignorance For the
Whole World to See:

Verdict:

Guilty For
Gun Control
Laws in Wisconsin

With Only Shadows of

Doubt On Their Ability Now

To Lift The Blinds of Ignorance,

According to the Original Greek
Definition of Apocalypse That Means

Just That:

Bringing

Light into
The Darkness....

And Nah, i Don't Need to Cite

Any Research to Prove my Point;

It is as Clear As Common Sense From A Naked Ape, Like me....

Who Understands It is Easier to Pull A Trigger Than Strangle A Fellow Ape...

However,

i Readily

Admit i've

Been Attacked

And Strangled Someone

Into Submission; Didn't

Even Have to Think

About it;

Just Like Kyle

When He Pulled

His Trigger Instead

of Flexing His Forearms

And Letting Go With His Hands

While the Perpetrator Saw The Folly Of His Offense...

There is No 'Real Strength' in A Gun; Only Weakness

Until a Man

Can Defend Himself;

Of Course There are

Others Who Use Equalizers

Instead; i Understand What that

Threat Feels Like too; When i Was A
Very Small Boy And Just Used Wit to

Stop a Crowd of Bullies From Beating me Up....

i Can't Judge

Anyone Else

for What They

Can't And Won't Do

And What i Can And Will Do; However,

Kyle Rittenhouse Would have likely Benefitted
Much From Training in Martial Arts, instead of

Carrying A Tool

THAT WILL
NEVER MAKE

HIM A REAL

MAN WHO WILL
MAKE BETTER DECISIONS IN LIFE...

FIRST STEP; Mastering What is Within;
Particularly 'The Shadow' Without A 'Brain'...

And Like Bruce Lee, When Someone Wanted
to Start A Fight With Him in a Fictional Movie;

Don't Be A Fool;

Just Leave the

Fools on the

Island By Themselves
in their Addictions of

Low Self Esteem Bringing Fear, Anger, And Hate.

Travel to Paradise And Forget Those Fools;

And Understand Human Life is Worth More
Than Frigging

Dead Property.

-In Just my Opinion

-In Just My Philosophy

EXPRESSED JUST LIKE THIS:

DO THE LEAST HARM, SURVIVE, AND THRIVE

IF YOU DO IT WITH UNCONDITIONAL LOVE

YOU ARE LIKELY

TO BECOME

FRIENDS

WITH THE

DUDE YOU PUT
IN A CHOKE HOLD
AFTER HE COMES TO HIS

Rationality again,

Yet Only

IF He has
A HeART
Worthy of Love For Real...

Hopefully At Best The Country

And The World Will See the Folly

Of All of This And Better Avoid Rioting, And

Looting, And Trying to Become a Real Fool of A Hero

to Prove They

Are 'A Real Man'

Or Some Foolishness Like that...

Yet, Meh, i Tend to

Be A Full Chalice

Overflowing

Kinda

Guy...

And
Much
More
oF A Lady's Man...

*Yawn, Pass the Popcorn

In Paradise, Please Eve With SMiLes...

And Let 'The Boys' Play With Their Guns...

For Whatever
Laws

Do 'Dictate'...

---

Oh what a spicy, spicy topic. Wrong that he went out armed, right that it was self defence.

Kyle could have avoided trouble very easily, but looking for trouble still doesn't invalidate legitimate self defence. As unjust as many think this outcome is, even cuddly fun buns UK found a farmer innocent of murder after he blasted the living daylights out of a petty thief in the back with a pump action 12 gauge.

It's easy to speculate on the safety of the internet but let's put ourselves in the jurors shoes. They had a thankless job and were obliged to be as objective as they could possibly be.

I'd love to see how people would react if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a 17 year old female lifeguard acting in self-defence, instead of being a man.

Are women allowed self-defence in anyone's world view?

I think no 17yo, male nor female, should be allowed to freely enter area of unrest with a rifle.
If he was removed from the crowd on the very beginning, no one would have been harmed.

But that would be against American culture of firearms.

I agree magz. I'm not weighing in with an opinion, but I'm sincerely curious if gender would make a difference in anyone's view of the situation. I'm just trying to see the situation from all angles, thinking of Kyle as a "human" instead of a man, and thinking about the bigger topic of self-defence / personal safety instead of American politics or partisanship. I try to think large scale on issues pertaining to ethics and justice.

I believe you are making two logic errors here; misunderstanding what the legal standard actually means.

The standard for self defense is that someone feared for their life, not that their life was actually in danger. Big difference.

Nor does a jury statement of not guilty in the US represent a finding a truth. It represents a finding that the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury did not determine it was self-defense, but accepted that it might have been self defense.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 20 Nov 2021, 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What worries me about this verdict is that it may encourage more teens with weapons to follow Kyle, leading to more tragedies that could have been avoided.

I have an impression that American culture often values freedoms over lives - which wouldn't be that bad if they were freedoms and life of the same person. Too often, they're not.

Touché

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 20 Nov 2021, 12:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I very much have the same worry.

That is the way our laws work.

Hmm, I'm not convinced that "the only one he didn't hit" was as a result of his restraint.

Agree.

I get the feeling that this was an unintended test case which sets a precedent WRT armed activity. Apparently it is now Ok to stroll, armed while too young to vote, into the middle of a volatile situation with guns drawn and tempers flaring.
The implications of that are horrifying.

Was he old enough to carry the gun and attend the protest? Did he have a gun licence?

I don't know the gun laws.

Again I'm not weighing in -- just trying to get the basic legal facts. I didn't even know who he was until two or three days ago, and I haven't read much about the case --- but I'm interested in the philosophical aspect of justice writ large.

---

Give A Human A Fishing Pole And They May Eat.

Give A Human A Gun And They May Kill Someone.

Power Corrupts;

Guns Are Power;

Not Everyone Can

Handle Power; Some

Are Meek Enough to Do It.

Don't Give An Immature Person a Gun.

This isn't

That

Complicated

For Folks With Common Sense.

On The Other Hand, Social Distance,
Contact Trace, Wear A Mask, And

Vaccinate During A Pandemic;

Some People in the United

States Have Just

About the

Least Amount

of Common Sense

One Will Find Anywhere

In the World; This Happens
When a Country Uses 40 Percent
of Human Resources of the Globe

With 4 Percent of the Population;

It's Typical in HiStory For

Countries Like

This to

SUDDENLY

FALL AT THE PEAK
OF IGNORANCE AND GREED;

AND SELFISHNESS WITHOUT EMPATHY OF COURSE
FOR THEIR FELLOW HUMANS Striving to Survive/Thrive

With Compassion.

Of Course That's

Not A REAL Part of

Of The Judaeo-Christian-
Capitalist Pie Now; It's more

Of A LooKinG Forward to An
After Death Party Before Life Now...

Gotta Find the 'Root' of the Problem to

'Understand Why'...

It's Probably

All in Some

'Little BLack
Book' Somewhere Still...

---

My son learned to shoot when he was seven with a single shot old .22.He was under constant supervision by his dad , who was former military.He learned gun safety and also saw what a bullet does when it hits an animal hunting.
There is no way on God’s green earth would I or my ex let him take an assault rifle to a riot when he was seventeen.

I wouldn't either. I'm anti-gun, but America has the right to bear arms in their constitution (rightly or wrongly). I'm just trying to figure out the bare bones of the facts, since I'm so late even hearing about it. I just want to know whether it was legal or not for him to be there and have a rifle. It seems it was legal, or he would have been found guilty for carrying a firearm. Then I guess it's down to whether or not he was acting in self-defence, which the jury seems to think he was.

Whether he was a man or a woman or somewhere in between, right wing or left wing or somewhere in between, black or white or purple, I like to think of all people as equal human beings under the law, and hope everyone gets treated equally in court based on the merits of their case rather than their gender, ability, or political beliefs. That's why I asked if a young woman would have been treated differently for self-defence. I assume they'd be treated equally because the law can't discriminate by gender.