Kyle Rittenhouse Update

a reply to: standingwave

I do not disagree with your assessment of the rioters. They wanted a street battle with them being the only ones there to fight. I get that and there is no defense from me on their actions. However, that very street battle seemed to be the real reason Rittenhouse was there as well. Putting out the fire and cleaning up grafitti (CLEANING UP GRAFITTI in the middle of rioting gang of protesters????) is merely his defense for the actions he himself chose to engage in. Actions that ended up with him killing two people.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Based on all the available video, he was attacked, and defended himself.

How do you know his mental state?
Was he in the street or on private property?
Him traveling to that property isn't illegal.


Lastly, is premeditated self defense a thing? We agree he was defending himself and that lends itself to not being an aggressor. Something that would require some premeditated actions. Simply going there isn't applicable unless we are applying that to everyone there.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
He was out there looking for conflict. The book will be thrown at him and he is going away for a long time.

Were the other combatants looking for conflict?

a reply to: yuppa
How true. We lay people have our opinions, the lawyers have arguments and the one that comes up with the most persuasive argument in court will win it for him or lose it for him.

I doubt neither I or most any others in this thread would be acceptable to the jury. .... with us it seem either '' put him in jail for murder or build a statue to him.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: MDDoxs
He was out there looking for conflict. The book will be thrown at him and he is going away for a long time.

Were the other combatants looking for conflict?

Yes, though they are the ones that ended up dead. If the situation were reversed, they would have been arrested and faced the same consequences.

a reply to: JinMI

Simply going there isn't applicable unless we are applying that to everyone there.

Ah, but it is as it speaks directly to his motives. Why did he go there. We are not looking at why anyone else went there, only why did he. Again, the jury will have do decide, did he just, as you suggest, simply go there to try out the taco truck on the corner and the rioters found him there enjoying his lunch?

No, I don't think it was a matter of simply going there at all. But let's see what the jury finds.

a reply to: MDDoxs

If.....

Yea thats not going to work.


Can you think if a reason why he shouldn't have been there legally?

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: MDDoxs
He was out there looking for conflict. The book will be thrown at him and he is going away for a long time.

Were the other combatants looking for conflict?

Yes, though they are the ones that ended up dead. If the situation were reversed, they would have been arrested and faced the same consequences.

Exactly. And Rittenhouse would be a martyr. But better a live martyr in prison than a dead one I guess.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Of you don't know why he was there, you are able to find his lawyers statement. He was there all day, before the that particular evenings riot.

Before responding again, go look up his side of the story at least. Even if you think it absolute tripe.

Then we can discuss on equal ground.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: MDDoxs

If.....

Yea thats not going to work.


Can you think if a reason why he shouldn't have been there legally?

A state of emergency was declared in the area. Would that not have some impact of him being there and armed?

a reply to: MDDoxs

Wouldn't appear so. Given the crowd turnout, yea?

The feces is running deep here.

He met all of the criteria for self-defense under the law. He may face charges for a weapons violation, but, that has nothing to do with the murder charges.

Some of you say that he chose to be there. So? Nobody is saying that the ones who got shot ALSO CHOSE TO BE THERE. They chose to attack him.

From what some of you say, carrying a weapon makes you a "mercenary". A few years ago I went to the aid of a woman who was being robbed. If her attacker had just grabbed her things and took off, all I could have done was to give a description. No, he chose to start kicking her in the head. I pulled my pistol and thankfully he stopped. The local DA's office informed me that I would have been justified in shooting him. By your reasoning if I would have shot, I should have been charged with murder because I went to her aid.

I'm pretty much convinced that some of these "opinions" are from the anti-gun doctrine being spouted by the Left. More of it is ignorant "support" of the protesters because they have been made out to be some kind of heros, instead of the scum that they are.

a reply to: JIMC5499

From what some of you say, carrying a weapon makes you a "mercenary"

Yeah, that was me.

Your interesting tale of defending that woman was a good action, but your reasoning does not fit with how I would have evaluated your action. One, you did not go to that location specifically believing that you would need to defend yourself or any one eles. In general yes, but you were just out for a day of whatever and not looking for any kind of unlawful activity to correct. Though some came your way it was incidental to your reasons for being where you were in that moment of need. And likely you carry your pistol a good amount of the time for your own protection and that is what it was for.

But you did not, knowing that being a minor you could not carry a weapon across state lines and hence arrange to have one to be purchased for you when you did cross those lines as he did did you? Prolly not. As well, your reasoning, that ''my reasoning'' would have had you charged for murder is ludicrous.

As for your assumptions, and really that is a lot of what any of us here have, are, at least concerning my posts, way off base. As I have described numerous times in this thread, my opinions about Rittenhouse and his activity at that time does not in any way serve as a defense for the rioters. As well, I doubt that you can find anyone in this thread who holds up those rioters or any rioters in general as some kind of heroes.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I carry in that area because I know that there's a risk. The woman that I assisted was a co-worker. That doesn't matter. I'd do the same for anyone. Anyone who wouldn't really needs to rethink their priorities.

The fact that I am of age and Rittenhouse wasn't has no bearing on his defending himself. That is a separate issue. The weapons charges are a misdemeanor at most. He could have used a baseball bat, a knife or a bow and arrow.

We had an incident in June of 2020. I live in a small City near a large city. Word got out that a bunch of BLM protesters were coming to town. Word was that they were going to burn it down. Well about a hundred of us went up to greet them. We were armed to the teeth. A Marine infantry Company would have taken one look and said "Oh hell no!"

I was standing by a television news van and I heard one of the Producers say to someone on their phone "Don't come here. There's guns everywhere." Interesting. If there HAD been a fight, I wonder what the views would have been on that.

Notice that I did not single anybody out on my views, so please don't take it as a personal attack on you.

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: MDDoxs

If.....

Yea thats not going to work.


Can you think if a reason why he shouldn't have been there legally?

A state of emergency was declared in the area. Would that not have some impact of him being there and armed?

He was under 18 he had no business being armed. The defence is trying to use a hunting law to give him the excuse for having the rifle. However the judge is not buying it as he was not hunting at the time. So the defences argument was thrown out and he will still be charged for having the rifle.

Now i dont think he went there looking for trouble i think he just wanted to feel important. Made him feel like a big man carrying around the rifle in reality he was still just a boy. The responsiility was well beyond what he could handle obviously if a police officer had done the same thing hed go to jail.

Its a shame he has ruined his life because lack of parenting and his need to feel important. No matter the outcome people will know him for the rest of his life because of bad decisions

Under the law there, as I read it..of course I'm not a lawyer, but the impression I got, was even if he shouldn't of had the gun, he was legal to defend himself..all other bullsh#t aside. And he absolutely defended himself.

originally posted by: vonclod
Under the law there, as I read it..of course I'm not a lawyer, but the impression I got, was even if he shouldn't of had the gun, he was legal to defend himself..all other bullsh#t aside. And he absolutely defended himself.

Thats is the biggest problem you cant use self defence if you were not legally allowed to carry in the first place. This is what is likely to send him to prison. be like me killing someone with a rocket launcher self defence or not im going to jail for killing him with something im not legally allowed to have.

a reply to: JIMC5499
Thanks for that, I did not take as an attack. I just recognized the use of the word mercenary which I had used several times in this last page or so.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: vonclod
Under the law there, as I read it..of course I'm not a lawyer, but the impression I got, was even if he shouldn't of had the gun, he was legal to defend himself..all other bullsh#t aside. And he absolutely defended himself.

Thats is the biggest problem you cant use self defence if you were not legally allowed to carry in the first place. This is what is likely to send him to prison. be like me killing someone with a rocket launcher self defence or not im going to jail for killing him with something im not legally allowed to have.

As I read the law..yes you can. In defence of your life..yes. Now, like I said, obviously I'm not a lawyer..I could have misinterpreted.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: vonclod
Under the law there, as I read it..of course I'm not a lawyer, but the impression I got, was even if he shouldn't of had the gun, he was legal to defend himself..all other bullsh#t aside. And he absolutely defended himself.

Thats is the biggest problem you cant use self defence if you were not legally allowed to carry in the first place. This is what is likely to send him to prison. be like me killing someone with a rocket launcher self defence or not im going to jail for killing him with something im not legally allowed to have.

As I read the law..yes you can. In defence of your life..yes. Now, like I said, obviously I'm not a lawyer..I could have misinterpreted.

If that was true then his lawyers would not be trying to use hunting laws which the judge rejected. They would just stick with self defence. Or maye his lawyers are stupid? In which case he needs to fire them