Kyle Rittenhouse should be charged with murder? I figured that since we could post about riots, this subject would be fair game since it hypothetically should be not based on politics. I encourage you all to at the very least watch all of the footage of the events that is available to make up your own opinion, if it has not yet been made.
Do you think that...
- Thread starter 6OSK3RS
- Start date
Based on the video and most of the eye witness accounts we have at this point, no. That being said, like with everything else its too early to say with certainty. For example, if he had drugs in his system at the time, that would change things.
Political prisoner. Everyone should just let the BLM/Antifa thugs be. Let them tear down these progressive run cities. Reminds me of the "Little Shop of Horrors"/socialists/communists, no matter how much they get, they just want more. "Feed me Seymour, feed me."
I agree that it is too early to say with complete certainty. Kyle's lawyer has an extremely proven track record also so I'm sure that is in play. If Kyle gets exonerated on all of the charges, there could be a MASSIVE lawsuit against many large media companies that will make Sandmans settlement with CNN look like pocket change. Also important to mention that Kyle and Sandman are being represented by the same lawyer.
Newtons third law ; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I fear that if everyone let whoever it is violently protest, more people like Kyle will go out of their way in order to combat the opposite "action". It goes both ways and there would likely be a lot of bloodshed.
Yep. If we’re going to continue to protest and destroy property, bad things are going to continue to happen.
I think he should be charged and tried for murder. I doubt he's found guilty, more likely he will end up guilty of various weapons charges.
How and why a 17 year old kid ends up armed and running free during a riot in another state is a question I don't think will ever be answered.
How and why a 17 year old kid ends up armed and running free during a riot in another state is a question I don't think will ever be answered.
I think we should let the justice system investigate and figure it out. None of us were there or know all the facts.
He went to defend a store and was attacked. Think about the fact that we can no longer defend private property.
The issue with that line of defense is that it isn't his store to defend nor was he hired to defend that store. Then take into account he is from out of state and is a minor. Decisions have consequences
As much as it pains me, because I believe what he did was justified, I would charge him. He put himself in a situation where he had to use a weapon, people died. Let a jury determine if he was justified.
I understand people want to help protect private property and businesses, do it in your state or local community. Don’t put yourself into a position like he did. Hopefully he’s found not guilty but he’ll live the rest of his life knowing he killed two people
i agree let the jury decide. it didn't look to me like he was defending a particular store or people the footage shows him walking down the street with a gun. was it reasonable if he feared for his life? if so, then it was reasonable those who tried to take his gun feared for their lives too. its too complicated and we dont know enough of the details. he wouldn't have needed to shoot someone that night if he wasn't carrying a rifle. without the rifle it wouldn't have happened. maybe he gets some kind of weapons charge. im not a big fan of i can do something wrong because these other people are doing something wrong
He wasn't defending a store when he fired the gun. He didn't shoot anyone because they were threatening to break into or damage a store. He was defending his life from people who had chased him and were attempting to take the gun away from him. Kid was no doubt scared out of his mind that they would take the gun and shoot him with it or beat him to death. At least one person he shot was holding a gun, I believe. Had the mob left him alone, not chased and threatened him, and not tried to take the gun, no shots would have been fired and 3 people would not have been shot. You don't prosecute a person just to appease mobs if there is no crime. We still have a constitution that protects people from that - in some places anyway.
B.S. They didn't fear for their lives. You don't chase someone down if you are in fear for your life. He didn't threaten anyone with the gun before they went after him. They were intent on attacking him.
What already is going on in blue cities looks an awful lot like the run up to a civil war.
You should have stopped with I agree.
He didn't try to take their guns. Why are they trying to take his? Using the same logic you used, if they didn't try to disarm him, 2 men would be alive, still creating havoc.
Best I can tell, he was walking down the street armed, just like the people he shot.
What is critical in determining how he would be charged has nothing to do with him being a minor or being from out of state. The question is whether or not he was acting to defend his own life regardless of those other factors. Clearly on the video we see he was acting in self defense. Unfortunately we don't have video of the first shooting and it's likely the only witnesses to that were rioters.
The two are dead, so unless they got the names of other rioters at the time of the event, how could anyone prove they were there?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon&sxsrf=ALeKk02ikh-HNn2sWQ_QWWfMHP4ZnFwblQ:1599229485958&ei=LU5SX_mCOom7tQaR7pnoBQ&q=youtube+kyle+rittenhouse+r&r&oq=youtube+kyle+rittenhouse+r&r&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BAgjECc6AggAOgUIIRCrAjoHCCEQChCgAVDoF1jGM2DYNWgAcAB4AIABlwKIAaIGkgEFMC40LjGYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp# I am horrible with electronics so I dont know if the link will work. This youtube video is from a R&R law group and It has footage of the first shooting and what came just before it but in a separate video. I have watched it 3 times and it's best to watch on a bigger screen like a TV or Monitor. The video that I am specifically talking about is the 32 minute one.
Charged with murder? Sure.
He killed 2 people and seriously injured another.
Now did he actually 'murder' those two or was it in self-defense? Well, that is why have courts of law in our grand old United States of America to decide.
As for bail? That is an entirely different discussion.
He killed 2 people and seriously injured another.
Now did he actually 'murder' those two or was it in self-defense? Well, that is why have courts of law in our grand old United States of America to decide.
As for bail? That is an entirely different discussion.
From the accounts I read and saw on the video, I don't think he should be charged with murder; but if it was a crime to be an idiot, he should do life without parole.
First you say he should be charged with murder then you question if it was murder or self defense?
Killing someone isn't automatically "murder", so you don't just charge them with the crime and let the jury sort it out. The prosecutors need to determine what the charges are, maybe it should be involuntary manslaughter or some other lesser charge.
I think he defended himself, but he certainly put himself in the position for this to happen. It's not like people during the riot question what side you are on before they just make assumptions about you, or what just happened, leading to unpredictable things happening.
Someone else produced a handgun, so obviously more people are armed at these things than you might think.
It's a tragedy in a lot of ways, because some people paid the ultimate price, and for what?
What has changed, or what was solved in all this? Nothing.
Someone else produced a handgun, so obviously more people are armed at these things than you might think.
It's a tragedy in a lot of ways, because some people paid the ultimate price, and for what?
What has changed, or what was solved in all this? Nothing.
I'm ok with the "shouldn't have been there in the first place" argument as long as it applies to the 3 people that were shot as well.
17 year olds often don't make good decisions. I'm awfully lucky I didn't kill anybody at that age with my driving or hunting escapades.
Yes for the first person he shot in the back. There is a self defense argument related to the second victim- however it would have been a measure of justice if he would have had the crap beat out of him by those chasing him after he murdered the first person
You sir are spreading rumors. The video clearly shows that he did not shoot the first guy in the back. Yes, he was shot in the back, but you can also clearly see atleast 1 muzzle flash from one of the other people chasing kyle that was atleast 10 yards behind Rosenbaum who was chasing kyle.
This is the exact reason that I gave a link to all of the footage. You cant shoot someone in the back when they are chasing you and you are facing them like Kyle clearly was in the video.
Vigilante justice rarely ends well. Law enforcement should be performed by law enforcement officers.
On the other hand, you could hand out military grade weapons to teenage high school drop-outs with a cop complex and let them roam the streets at night. What could go wrong?
On the other hand, you could hand out military grade weapons to teenage high school drop-outs with a cop complex and let them roam the streets at night. What could go wrong?
Agree that won’t be helpful for him. But the person that attacked him guarding a store did not know any of that. That is what bugs me. So I realize he f’d but how it went down, “look that ducker wants to defend a store, let’s kick the **** out of him” pisses me off. I hate to say it but the guy then deserved to be shot. That is my opinion and I know my opinion is not equal to law.
I agree that vigilante justice rarely ends well. Just wondering, have you watched any of the actual footage other than when the shots were fired?
Didn't read the thread but to the OP: in short no.
At every instance he was trying to get away from a situation and was attacked. If he wouldn't have been attacked, those two people would be alive.
Separate argument on whether or not he should be there in the first place.
At every instance he was trying to get away from a situation and was attacked. If he wouldn't have been attacked, those two people would be alive.
Separate argument on whether or not he should be there in the first place.
It was a damned protest. People were there from all over the place. From the sounds of it, many had guns.
The kid was there (so were others), the kid was armed (so were others) and the kid protected himself from being killed (oh I don't know, his right)
Was it ugly? Yeah. But let's not act like we can declare who should be there. Apparently, anyone can. I didn't realize Kenosha had travel/weapon restrictions.
Hell, the kid was there cleaning up graffiti and protecting store fronts. You know who wasn't doing any of that? The local LEOs. I'm sure they were told to stand down while the town gets ransacked.
The kid was there (so were others), the kid was armed (so were others) and the kid protected himself from being killed (oh I don't know, his right)
Was it ugly? Yeah. But let's not act like we can declare who should be there. Apparently, anyone can. I didn't realize Kenosha had travel/weapon restrictions.
Hell, the kid was there cleaning up graffiti and protecting store fronts. You know who wasn't doing any of that? The local LEOs. I'm sure they were told to stand down while the town gets ransacked.
I have a suspicion that the first guy that was shot didnt care much for his life anyways. His obvious aggression towards the people protecting the stores, along with the "shoot me (n word soft a ), bust on me for real!" And proceeding to chase someone who openly carrying an ar15. That is just not a decision that a person of sound mind (white guy at that) would make.