Thats because he didn't murder anyone. All he did was protect himself from some criminals intent on hurting him.
Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Look, Colpy, I don't see the point to discussing/arguing over this.
You think he's innocent.
I think he's guilty.
He'll get off because he was never going to be found guilty to begin with, because despite what the prosecution hoped, they cannot prove within the laws of the Sate of Wisconsin that what he did was what he's being charged with. There is too much doubt that can be made for his side of things. They knew this before even going to trial. Anyone who was following knew the prosecution was going to have a hard time, if impossible time, to prove what happened. I'm sorry you were too ignorant to realize this from the get go and thought the trial would somehow be an actually legit trial. (doesn't help the Judge is questionable, so is the jury, because of the impossibility of impartiality, to EITHER side)
In the end, poor widdle Kyle will get off scott free and the best that can be hoped for is a civil case that'll ruin his life.
ETA: I'm sure you'll or others go off on how I'm avoiding things or being a 'typical leftie' or what the fuck ever.
Honestly, I don't care. Fill your boots.
But considering how if the situation were the same, except Kyle was not white (yes, I AM going there) this would be an entirely different story and if you think it wouldn't be, then you are being fucking ignorant.
ETA again; if someone is found innocent of what the prosecution charges them of then question.
Was OJ Simpson truly innocent??? Or can sometimes the prosecution just not prove within the law that the person did what they did and the person gets off?
Last edited:
He'll probably get off on the homicides.
Weapons crimes, not so much.
Weapons crimes, not so much.
well, thanks for a rational reply.
I don't know if OJ was innocent, I suspect he was anything but. But I know he is not guilty.
But the problem is that Kyle Rittenhouse WAS defending himself. I've been watching the trial, not all of it (I sometimes pretend to have a life) but I have watched hours of it. Rittenhouse shot three criminals that were attacking him while he did his best to get away. He did not fire at anyone that was not attacking him. He did nothing wrong. He was trying to be a good citizen. I do not understand, it is completely beyond me why anyone not involved would loathe this kid.
Completely and only my opinion, but Rittenhouse appears to be not overly bright, with a bit of a hero complex............but damn, that is not an evil thing. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Rittenhouse sees himself as the white hat, he is a bit of a Walter Mitty figure. His intentions were pure as the driven snow, he was just overstepping himself.
And watch the vid I'm going to post below. I know, it is Shapiro, but it shows the final "victim" admitting that Rittenhouse did NOT shoot at him until he was standing over him pointing a pistol at him.
There is a thread in American law about "going looking for a fight," but the general rule of deadly force in self defence is that it is justified if the accused had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm." It's very temporally limited. If somebody swings a knife at you and runs away, you can't shoot at his fleeing back. Once the threat is gone, the right vanishes.
The law generally also does not inquire how the accused came to be in the situation he was in when he defended himself. Again, the whole "deadly force in self defense" doctrine looks to the moment, not what came before or after.
Probably the best way to get Rottenhouse, if one were determined to get him, is the "misdememeanor-manslaughter" rule. Like the felony murder rule, the doctrine is that if the accused is committing a misdemeanor (weapons violations in this case) any death that results is manslaughter on the accused.
Your confidence is inversely proportional to your competence.
Are you sure you're not American?
I bow to your superior knowledge of , well , umm , being superior . Keep up the good work .
But of course while calling the accused Rottenhouse we can expect a completely unbiased opinion .
It's not an opinion. It's a summary of the state of American law.
Being a moron isn't against the law, as evidenced by the fact that you're not locked up.
Prosecutions own witnesses are claiming self defense, reacting to not intending too cause harm
Yup the men in the white coats walked right by me chief . But you are still biased in your comments so who should take you seriously ?