Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[TennesseeFan07]

No way he should face first degree charges.

On a sidenote, what parent knowingly lets a 17 year old go to something like that out of state?

 

[volinbham]

No way he should face first degree charges.

On a sidenote, what parent knowingly lets a 17 year old go to something like that out of state?

They live less than 10 miles from the state line and he worked in the area he went to that night. Still not a good decision to go but the out of state thing is kinda overblown.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No way he should face first degree charges.

On a sidenote, what parent knowingly lets a 17 year old go to something like that out of state?

Pretty sure Kyle's dad lives in Kenosha.

 

[C-south]

They could attack the courthouse and then Republicans would call them Patriots..

And George Floyd is your hero.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

No way he should face first degree charges.

On a sidenote, what parent knowingly lets a 17 year old go to something like that out of state?

This has bothered me the way this keeps getting brought up was it technically in another state yes, but this is like someone in Rossville, Fort Oglethorpe or Ringgold, Georgia going to Chattanooga it's like 10-20 miles away.

His dad lived in Kenosha, his best friend lived there and he worked there he was probably there every day.

 

[TennesseeFan07]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MG1968]

And George Floyd is your hero.

Or Michael Brown, the thug that started this whole thing.

 

[lawgator1]

What else was he there to do then, according to you?

A reasonable inference from all the evidence is that he is a very immature vigilante who wanted to insinuate himself into a volatile situation. He hoped for a confrontation that would allow him to use his gun.

Most evidence is not direct. He does not say "this was my intent." But that's not the law. Juries are instructed to weight the full force and effect of it to reach their conclusions.

 

[KB5252]

Apparently jury has asked for self defense instructions.

 

[KB5252]

A reasonable inference from all the evidence is that he is a very immature vigilante who wanted to insinuate himself into a volatile situation. He hoped for a confrontation that would allow him to use his gun.

Most evidence is not direct. He does not say "this was my intent." But that's not the law. Juries are instructed to weight the full force and effect of it to reach their conclusions.

The same could be said for last guy who was shot.

The bottom line is he did not escalate the series of events that led to violence, in fact he attempted to retreat.

 

[KB5252]

A reasonable inference from all the evidence is that he is a very immature vigilante who wanted to insinuate himself into a volatile situation. He hoped for a confrontation that would allow him to use his gun.

Most evidence is not direct. He does not say "this was my intent." But that's not the law. Juries are instructed to weight the full force and effect of it to reach their conclusions.

The other interpretation, and every bit as reasonable, is that he felt a duty to help in his community and based on news coverage came prepared in case violence was directed at him.

 

[Sandman 423]

A reasonable inference from all the evidence is that he is a very immature vigilante who wanted to insinuate himself into a volatile situation. He hoped for a confrontation that would allow him to use his gun.

I can agree with your first sentence minus the incorrect word.(I guess you could technically use it) Your second sentence is stupid.

 

[jp1]

A reasonable inference from all the evidence is that he is a very immature vigilante who wanted to insinuate himself into a volatile situation. He hoped for a confrontation that would allow him to use his gun.

Most evidence is not direct. He does not say "this was my intent." But that's not the law. Juries are instructed to weight the full force and effect of it to reach their conclusions.

In my opinion it was not smart for him to be there, however on what basis do you make the claim that he was there hoping for a confrontation?

Were the rioters there for a confrontation?

 

[ETV]

The protests outside the courthouse should be cleared out by whatever means necessary. This stupidity has to be dealt with at some point.

Saw one video clip and wasn't able to understand what was being said between either individuals. Frontier gibberish.

 

[lawgator1]

The same could be said for last guy who was shot.

The bottom line is he did not escalate the series of events that led to violence, in fact he attempted to retreat.

That is an argument for him in the trial. Personally, I think its a weak one. I don't think that having set those wheels in motion he can take one or two steps back and thereby undo everything that led up to it. But certainly some jurors may disagree.

 

[lawgator1]

The other interpretation, and every bit as reasonable, is that he felt a duty to help in his community and based on news coverage came prepared in case violence was directed at him.

No credible argument can be made that he was protecting himself when he took the gun, got into his car, and drove over there.

 

[C-south]

Or Michael Brown, the thug that started this whole thing.

You just don’t understand the oppression of not being allowed to rob a QT or assault and try to take a weapon from a police officer.

 

[KB5252]

That is an argument for him in the trial. Personally, I think its a weak one. I don't think that having set those wheels in motion he can take one or two steps back and thereby undo everything that led up to it. But certainly some jurors may disagree.

What did he do leading up to that moment? You have to prove he was the antagonist. Putting out a fire or being armed doesn't qualify. What aggressive actions are your accusing him of? That's your obligation in making this charge against him. Same as the prosecutor, and his case was weak. What evidence do you have he didn't?

 

[lawgator1]

In my opinion it was not smart for him to be there, however on what basis do you make the claim that he was there hoping for a confrontation?

Were the rioters there for a confrontation?

Yes, and any rioter who destroyed property or engaged in physical violence should be held accountable.

They're personal political outrage at the event that precipitated the riots does not justify what they did and does not excuse their criminal culpability.

Rittenhouse's personal outrage at the riots does not justify what he did and does not excuse his criminal culpability, either.

 

[Sandman 423]

No credible argument can be made that he was protecting himself when he took the gun, got into his car, and drove over there.

So no one can protect themselves in public?

 

[lawgator1]

What did he do leading up to that moment. You have to prove he was the antagonist. Putting out a fire or being armed doesn't qualify. What aggressive actions are your accusing him of. That's your obligation in making this charge against him. Same as the prosecutor, and his case was weak. What evidence do you have he didn't?

 

[KB5252]

No credible argument can be made that he was protecting himself when he took the gun, got into his car, and drove over there.

I'm sure he saw the news story about the former cop shot dead when he confronted looters.

If you're intent to go to an area where rioting is happening and violence is possible because it's already happened being armed isn't unreasonable.

We can argue whether or not it was smart, I don't think it was, but it wasn't illegal.

 

[lawgator1]

So no one can protect themselves in public?

You know its not that simple. Come on.

 

[RikidyBones]

View attachment 412197View attachment 412198View attachment 412199

Walking with a gun pointed down and looking at a camera. You really think that makes him an antagonist? Lol smh.

 

[ButchPlz]

Or Michael Brown, the thug that started this whole thing.

He was just an innocent boy that didn't do nothin!