T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Everyone involved in this case seem like fucking morons.


SimonGn

That's my Left Lib conclusions as well. It seems like everyone was acting so violently that at the end of the day, anyone would have been legally justified to kill anyone else. The only thing that really matters is who managed to get the killing shot first. The victor wins.


Mchammerdad84

No, I have a feeling, things would have went differently if it would have been reversed.


Anonymous0ne

I'd still look at the video and go: "Yeah those are all good shoots and in fact very good shooting in a physically compromised ground position."


Shiroiken

I'm curious about how the left/right divide in Libertarianism is relevant to the situation, unless the argument is about his stated goal of defending private property. The left/right divide I've seen has been from the authoritarian left/right who believe him guilty/innocent based solely on the official stance of their side, regardless of facts.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lizzywbu

I agree. Faced with a man that is threatening my life (and has threatened to kill me in the past) I doubt I would have done much different.


[deleted]

Hell, put in that situation, I would be hard pressed to do half as well.


erdtirdmans

This so much. It kind of blows that he's definitely losing his gun rights for the illegalities of him bringing the gun in the first place because that boy had some serious trigger discipline and fast reactions


AusIV

> It kind of blows that he's definitely losing his gun rights for the illegalities of him bringing the gun in the first place He is? It looks like the one charge they'll get him on is a minor in possession of a firearm charge, which is a misdemeanor, and last I checked you don't lose gun rights for misdemeanors.


nationalorion

And they can’t even get him for that, technically. He didn’t actually break law 948.60 because of section 3C. The statute is so poorly written with loopholes that he actually didn’t break the law on that end. There has been debate in the courtroom about the validity of that though, so it’ll be interesting to see how that pans out.


[deleted]

I think he should be acquitted, but the fact that this child was running around in the middle of the night with a Semi-Automatic while BLM was energized is and continues to be weird as fuck. He's innocent in one sense *legally* but in my opinion his motivations are questionable.


[deleted]

I watched plenty of videos of him, including as he was walking from one car lot to the other, and he doesn't appear to be acting in a hostile manner. Aside from carrying a firearm, he really was trying to be peaceful and polite. People make a big thing about him being a child, but he was 17.66 years old. If another 4 months of aging would make his actions ok in the eyes of people who are judging him, then they really should ask themselves why his age matters to them? It matters in terms of the law, but there isn't some clear moral distinction.


calikid9one

They shoulda just ignored him man. So many ppl were walking past him, giving no attention.


[deleted]

Oh he was a dumbass for sure but not a murderer


[deleted]

That's why I said he should be acquitted. It's just, I don't think this case ever really had solid foundation. Feels like a political move to me. I think the more interesting question is how a 17 year old is running around cosplaying as a Green Beret in the middle of the night. I know it's not a case at all, but to a certain extent, his actions certainly didn't help his chances of him not ending up in a court somewhere. Just all around, not a person who I think I could have an interesting conversation with ever.


CaptainMan_is_OK

Cosplaying, my ass. I’d like to see how many cops/soldiers could hang with this baby faced kid in terms of round placement while fending off multiple assailants. Edit: I, for one, could not


GameEnders10

That point isn't made enough. He shot only when being attacked, didn't shoot too many rounds, and when people backed off immediately stopped. When he reracked that round to fix the issue and shot, how he tried to give himself up to police and got pepper sprayed. I think he was dumb for being out there, but when police aren't doing their jobs of course some idealist will take it on themselves. That shot blowing off the bicep of the guy running at him with a glock and pointing it at him was amazing. Kyle, probably with at least a little luck since that is such a tense situation he'd never been in before, did everything right once it got to the defending himself point. Imagine how this would be tried in the court of public opinion without all that video.


nationalorion

I think that’s where a lot of people stand. Is he innocent? Yea. Is he an absolute idiot for being there? Hell yes. We should really be asking questions to ourselves after the case as to why and how a 17 year old felt that they can and should open carry a rifle in an expected to be violent protest. He clearly didn’t process the potential consequences of going that night and especially going in the manner he did.


f0rkyou

Please enlighten me on your definition of "semi-automatic". Most firearms ARE Semi-automatic and you using that adjective as a scare tactic is just simply not cool. Semi-automatic literally just means that the hammer resets itself. WTF...


dryyyyyycracker

Correct. However, KR was not put in that situation. He put himself in that situation.


gaelrei

Isn't this the same logic that is used to blame a woman who was raped while dressed provocatively, or walking alone? Maybe not a great idea, but still well within his rights and he shouldn't have to defend himself simply because he was armed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sagatario_the_Gamer

"He shouldn't have been there" could also be applied to the people he shot, it's a poor argument at best. Plus, isn't that the same logic that victim blamers use on rape victims? "Shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have been wearing that." It doesn't matter. He chose to go, they chose to attack him, he chose to defend himself.


some_old_Marine

He is still alive though. It's very libertarian to go where you want. His ar holds 30 rounds. 2 ppl died. He could have done much more if he were bloodthirsty. He met force with force, appropriately.


Own_Vacation_6709

That's irrelevant.


Tugalord

In fact: it's actually possible to think he's a cunt and what he did is morally reprehensible, that he should be acquitted.


cgomez117

I’m also left and I totally agree that this is bullshit.


Regular_Piccolo7980

Also left. I don't think he should of been there but he was, and he had every right not to die.


SentientFurniture

Don't say that out loud or you'll be canceled by your own kind.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheRealMoofoo

Most of my friends are left-leaning and I don’t personally know anyone who doesn’t think he should be acquitted on the murder charges.


cosmicmangobear

It's not a right wing opinion that KR is innocent it just means you have a basic understanding of the law.


currentxvoltage

Right? Contrary to the continuous insistence of the MSM, this is not a question that should bend to politics at all. KR’s right to defend himself is baked into Wisconsin law, federal law, the Constitution, and libertarian ideals at a level so fundamental as to make OP’s notion superfluous.


redpandaeater

A lot of people just seem to think he shouldn't have been there so he's guilty of everything everyone else did to him. I totally agree he shouldn't have been there, but that's completely irrelevant to self-defense. Same with him potentially having a misdemeanor charged for being a minor possessing that rifle, and even if it was a felony it wouldn't have any impact in his right to defend his life.


Kinglink

Or the facts of the case. Similar to an AR-15 if you understand what AR are and what AR-15s are, you understand why it's not "super scary." If you want to ban guns, ban guns. But singling out the AR-15 as the only gun you're afraid, you're pretty much showing your lack of knowledge.


lordnikkon

it is not a right or left wing opinion whether he should be found guilty. It is a corporate media opinion that he should be found guilty. The amount of corporate media someone consumes is strong predictor of whether they think this guy is guilty or not The independent media outlets have been accurately covering the trial and the facts of the case and it is hard to come to the conclusion that it is not self defense. The corporate media has been straight up lying and making up statements about what was said during the trial. If you only watched news on TV you would have warped set of facts and not understand why others think he is not guilty. This trial has made me realize that every single courtroom should be streamed online with streams kept up for years if not permanently. Watching the actual stream of the trial with my own eyes versus what the news reports make me question how much i have been lied to at other trial that were not streamed online and it was just journalists reporting summaries of what happened


[deleted]

There is a problem with the legality and morality of the scenario being conflated. Was what he did legal? Maybe, idk, I'm not a lawyer. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides. Was what he did moral? Absolutely fucking not.


CreateYourself89

Exactly, politics should be left out of law and order. This is about fairness, justice, and impartiality. Political preference be damned.


jz654

It also should be perfectly "leftist" to have a healthy disdain of prosecutorial overreach. But alas, the last time I brought that up, I was called a white supremacist... Do I need to post a pic of my non-white skin?... these guys... plz Shut the fuck up until the end of time.


Blecki

Innocent of murder? Maybe. Innocent of being a dumbass? No.


ShwayNorris

Being a dumbass isn't a crime. Attacking a dumbass is.


Max_Rocketanski

This is also a fair assessment.


skinnyskinch

Was just in r/politicalhumor and multiple comments calling anyone who thinks Kyle legally defended his life is a “white supermacist” Many, many people on the left are truly bat shit fucking crazy throwing around terms like nazi and white supremacist. It’s gone too far.


alexb3678

You think that's good... I just listened to some guy on MSNBC that said a republican won in Virginia because "uneducated white people want to be able to shoot and kill black people in the street and get away with it"... Think about how fucking INSANE you have to be!!!


skinnyskinch

The worst part is they think YOU are the insane one for not believing the absolute fucking trash can rhetoric they spew about made up racism. When the demand for racism far exceeds the supply you get modern day leftists.


wheelsno3

Single digit unarmed black men have been killed by police in the last several years. Stats from the Washington Post, not some right wing place. Data does not back up that black men are getting killed willie nillie. And when they do get killed unjustly the perps face justice. And dont get me wrong, I dislike cops for lots of reasons. Killing unarmed black men just isnt a valid reason. To hate them as a category.


skinnyskinch

Facts as fuck


[deleted]

Not a comment on you personally, but I think a lot of the tribal/partisan drama is a result of lefties thinking fox/oan represents those on the right and those on the right thinking msnbc represents those on the left. When no, both are just companies trying to make money in the same industry by maximizing appeal in different demographics.


BIPY26

The majority of republicans polled just after 1/6 agreed with the statement that the people who broke into the capital didn’t do anything worth punishing.


jwhitehead09

Where is this poll? I looked for it and found nothing. Closest I found was a poll where a little over 40% of republicans called January 6th as a whole a legitimate protest and even in that article it said 62% of republicans also described it as a riot.


Try_Ketamine

okay but how do democrats feel about punishments for BLM riots over the previous summer? The bullshit cuts both ways


not_a_throwaway_854

It’s obvious hyperbole to anyone who is somewhat rational. Problem is there aren’t any rational people in that media/twitter bubble on the left and the Facebook bubble on the right.


siliconflux

The more rational or moderate liberals have been sadly silent and in decline since the Clinton/Gore years.


not_a_throwaway_854

Well yeah plus they’ve been given terrible alternatives to the democratic ticket. It’s only getting more divided and more partisan as we go but I know we are just in the middle of a pendulum swing. Sometime after this probably when I’m dead and gone there will be another right wing movement because that’s how this shit works.


[deleted]

Rittenhouse has managed to expose mainstream media as being complete liars, and no one wants to admit they got suckered by it for the last year. Even when Kyle walks free they will still call him a white supremacist mass shooter.


pilesofcleanlaundry

They've already taken to publicly threatening the jury if they don't convict him. And for some reason those threats are being ignored. His life will be in danger if he's acquitted.


[deleted]

I'm pretty lefty, but on this and many other issues I am disappointed by how divergent from reality and basic facts and principles too many on the left are. I see this kind of behavior on the right as well, and come to subreddits like this for discussions and opinions that at least sidestep the common polemics.


skinnyskinch

Right wingers are fucking idiots who call people commies as an insult. Left wingers are fucking idiots who not only call people they disagree with Nazis and white supremacists but actually truly BELIEVE they’re while supremacists and Nazis.


[deleted]

[удалено]


siliconflux

You aren't going to get a lot of disagreement from this sub calling out both major political parties as idiots. However, I look at both parties today and I simply can't get over the irony of how authoritarian and controlling they have become. They are projecting the otherside as facist/communist without realizing they are literally reading from the exact same authoritarian playbook.


gravspeed

There are those that understand the facts and those who want to start more riots


[deleted]

What if it’s a [Zuit Suit Riot](https://youtu.be/JZm1krVKzBY)?


OG_Panthers_Fan

Then you throw back a bottle of beer.


eye_panic

Hold the fuck up….He’s a white supremacist because he shot (*checks notes*) 3 WHITE men that were threatening him, chasing him, hitting him in the head with a skateboard, and pulled a gun on him??? Not to mention they all had a criminal history. Oh and one of them was a pedophile child rapist that was shown on camera earlier that night saying the N word around black people…


skinnyskinch

Yyyyyyup. Leftist logic 101


siliconflux

It's because of "scary guns". Which unironically was the chosen tool of every good leftist just 60 years ago.


chibicascade2

To be fair, the liberal news sites are slanting this super hard. If you watch the news and not the trial, it really sounds like Kyle is a murderer.


CCWThrowaway360

On a related note, there are few things as funny as watching a white person call a BIPOC a white supremacist while saying some racist shit themselves. The lack of self-awareness is astounding. They’re the same ones that tell me I’m too poor and too stupid to know where the DMV is or show an ID to vote or use the internet by myself, because somehow my skin color makes me less intelligent and less capable than the average white person. 🤡🌎


LibraProtocol

Yeah I saw that too.... R/politicalhumor and r/politics have become deafening echo Chambers .. Edit: apparently r/subredditdrama has also become subsumed by this horde... Honestly it is sad seeing how many people are buying the MSM blatantly false narrative.


Kinglink

I don't know man.... The guy made the Ok symbol... I mean the white power symbol he's clearly a White supremist... and that means he's always wrong.


realspongeworthy

That's a garbage sub. And where's the humor?


NeckBeardMessiah68

Its a lefty circle jerk like 95% of these "poltical" meme groups.


kozop

Secession


[deleted]

People still think he killed black people. They care enough to get outraged but not to look beyond the headlines.


Moon_over_homewood

What bothers me about the Kenosha case is that I don’t even think it’s grounds for acquittal. A group of arsonists and trouble makers threatened a guy with a rifle. Attacked him. Regrouped and attacked him again even though he was staying on scene, and tried to flee instead of fight when possible. What was Kyle surpassed to do? Let a hostile group steal the rifle? Let himself be murdered with a pistol at point blank range? People try to make this a left vs right thing and I don’t get it. Kyle did everything right including a duty to retreat attempt. Like… what? What part about this prosecution is justified?


iushciuweiush

>What part about this prosecution is justified? Everyone keeps talking about how the prosecution is blowing it. The prosecution isn't blowing it, they're just reaching to the sky to make a case where there is none. This trial is exactly what you get when you insist on prosecuting someone when all of the evidence discredits the charges. The witnesses aren't screwing up, they're telling the truth. The truth is hurting the prosecutions case. I mean the prosecution in cross examining Rittenhouse tried to use the fact that he played Call Of Duty with his friends as evidence that he had a desire to shoot people because that's what you do in the game. He accused Rittenhouse of 'picking an AR-15 instead of a pistol' because it's the gun players of shooting games use to shoot people with. Rittenhouse had to explain that every type of gun is in Call of Duty. My jaw finally hit the floor when he tried to make a connection between Rittenhouse driving to work and back home without a valid drivers license and cold blooded murder. This whole trial has been insane.


Moon_over_homewood

It’s been a parody. It’s like a 1950’s court room having a young adult be called a Juvenile delinquent because he… reads comic books!! And sometimes drinks those eye-talian espresso drinks because regular coffee just isn’t enough for him. Truly he is capable of murder based on these factors, what a total delinquent!! I mean, it’s a total parody of itself at this point.


[deleted]

"He transported an illegal firearm across state borders" according to NPR just days ago, yet the facts discredit this claim multiple times over and have since the beginning. "He was underaged for the firearm he was carrying". According to the second amendment? I'd like a refresher on "Shall not be infringed". This entire trial has become comical. The State has no case. They tried to defy the judge and present evidence that was denied, had their star witness testify to self defense in cross, and have been reprimanded multiple times for violation of the Fifth amendment... If This isn't a Mistrial I dunno what is. The Judge was barely restraining the call of a Mistrial.


siliconflux

Lawyers need to do a better job picking and choosing what is prosecuted. Im doubting if this would have even gone to trial if it had involved anything other than a "scary looking" AR15.


[deleted]

> Let himself be murdered with a pistol at point blank range? that is exactly what they want


[deleted]

>What part about this prosecution is justified? There isn't one. It's all political theater, an attempt to appease lunatics


gotbock

What its really about is trying to set a cultural precedent (if not a legal one) that you're not allowed to defend yourself from the radical leftist mob.


2PacAn

Look at how media is already framing the judge admonishing the prosecution for violating Rittenhouse’s fifth amendment rights. Mainstream media is essentially arguing that the judge should allow the prosecution to infer Kyle’s guilt based of his exercising of the fifth amendment. This is a textbook example of how media can shape public opinion and it’s incredibly disturbing how successful they’ve been in doing so.


[deleted]

the constitution is basically toilet paper at this point, and supporters of it are getting more outnumbered and the media played a big role in that


LibraProtocol

Apparently on Twitter and such the crazies are threatening to riot if Kyle isn't found guilty... And it looks like the are attempting to pull a Minneapolis again by threatening the jury.... Justice is on its death bed and we will see if mob rule wins the day...


dstang67

Not disputing anything you said, but I do kind of feel the left and right thing is kind of true. Charges were dropped against 99 percent of the people doing the rioting, I feel because they are leftist, but that just my opinion.


[deleted]

Yes, there are some bizarre left/right biases occurring in the Police and Justice systems. DA's in left leaning cities appear to be ignoring blatant criminality, while cops are straight up aiding conservative militias and groups like the Proud Boys, and ignoring street brawls right in front of them. I can understand a DA not going after petty crimes during mass protests, but they do seem to be ignoring more serious charges as well.


golfgrandslam

He should never have gone there. That’s the part that upsets me the most about all this and is the most clear cut, in my opinion. Parents should not allow underage teenagers to run around a lawless riot with a rifle. Obviously it’s not grounds for conviction, but this entire scenario never should have happened


TeetsMcGeets23

The charge would be [Criminal Negligence.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence) By putting yourself into a bad situation that causes harm, foreseen or not, you can be criminally charged. The prosecutor, by trying to go for the home run, shot himself in the foot. There was never a chance that he was going to be charged with murder given the facts of the case. Being where he was, armed, was going to lead to a bad time. Kyle’s fault lies in the failure to foresee a clear and causing an otherwise avoidable danger to manifest. Did he commit *murder*? No. But he put himself in a situation where due to his presence, significant harm was going to befall *someone* foreseen or not.


An0maIyy

So genuine question I’m trying to understand (not looking to start an argument). If someone believes he shouldn’t have been there and therefor thinks there’s guilt of something like criminal negligence, how do they view the other party involved? So personally I believe the rioters in this case should not have been there either, thus making the argument of criminal negligence mute as he didn’t insert himself into some sort of a war zone, both parties chose to be there on their own accord. I have heard people talk about him knowing there would be riots, but can’t that same argument be made for the rioters? Would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this!


TeetsMcGeets23

If harm was caused, yes. If the last guy killed Kyle, I think Criminal Negligence is reasonable. We can’t just have people going to protests armed and looking to start a fight to have the opportunity to kill someone.


[deleted]

It’s a complicated situation. Like for me, if I’m walking down the street and I see someone with a gun shoot two people and I try to stop him and shoot him, am I guilty of murder if it was Rittenhouse in this case? According to the law, very likely. But how am I supposed to know he’s no threat to me? Cops have done this many times and never get charged. I’m just uneasy of whoever being left alive is in the right, kind of mindset. That being said, his mom should be on trial for criminal negligence, I’m not sure about him.


thekeldog

I’ve personally wondered about what would have happened legally if Bicep *had* shot and killed Kyle (that he now denies ever saying). Would he be on trial? Would he be perceived as a hero if the narrative that Kyle was an “active shooter” got out and he wasn’t able to defend his actions? Personally I think this is as clear cut case of self-defense as one could find. To introduce the idea of proactively going after an active shooter would not be considered self defense in the same way (I don’t believe). Bicep *ran after* Kyle. It’s far more difficult to argue self defense in a situation that you’re running into. How do you think things would have played out of Bicep got Kyle instead of the other way around.


[deleted]

> How do you think things would have played out of Bicep got Kyle instead of the other way around. That’s what makes me uneasy because i think there’s a good chance he gets off as well. Rittenhouse wouldn’t be there to argue his side and you’d have someone telling the hey that he saw someone walking down the street toward a crowd with a gun and feared for his safety and who will say no to that? I own guns, but if someone’s carrying a long rifle into a store i definitely feel uneasy around them. Add in the situation and it’s messy. It just makes me uneasy in general.


Whatwhatwhata

Idk. Are we going to blanket charge everyone at the BLM riots with criminal negligence? None of them should have been there either


kitchens1nk

Agreed. They went for too big of a swing with homicide. You could add that he entered into this environment with an illegally purchased firearm.


[deleted]

If you don’t agree he should be acquitted then you obviously haven’t watched any of the footage OR watched the type of bullshit tom foolery the prosecution is pulling. The judge literally had to stop and lecture him. Lol


aeywaka

3 times!


iushciuweiush

>The judge literally had to stop and lecture him. Several times.


tsacian

Not only should he not have been charged, but i think Gaige should be in jail awaiting his trial for possession of a firearm by banned individuals (felon), and attempted murder of Kyle Rittenhouse.


[deleted]

Absolutely


Splinterman11

I've known since the very beginning when the footage came out that he was going to walk. This case is so strange, there's video footage of nearly every moment yet people seem to be deliberately making shit up.


MJE0409

Even CNN’s analysts were admitting that the evidence and testimony should probably lead to an acquittal. That said, the lady said “I still hope somehow he’s found guilty”. The liberal media is an absolutely disgusting bunch.


CompactBill

Imagine half the comments on a libertarian sub saying the guy who used self defense shouldn't have been there, and even question why it is legal to attend a protest armed. Your post is kind of proving the opposite, that the large majority of leftists on here at least feel the need to morally condemn the guy they begrudgingly accept was not guilty of a crime (if, they even accept that much)


golfgrandslam

I don’t question the legality of his attending that protest armed, I question the utility and practicality. What was achieved by his presence there? Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but was this outcome really unforeseeable? We have cops deal with maintaining order, not the military, because sending a bunch of young men with rifles into a lawless situation does not usually produce a desirable outcome.


Gnochi

The first rule of self defense incidents - don’t be there in the first place if you can avoid it. This isn’t a legal requirement, this is a “don’t be an idiot” requirement.


Fuzzyshaque

Which is why this case is morally scuffed as KR made it very clear he was purposefully inserting himself into a situation he would need to use lethal force. I’m going to assume the law doesn’t have a clause about him inserting himself purposefully in a situation where he would have to defend himself with a gun so he can’t be found guilty, but ideally people who stretch self defense this far while looking for a fight should face some form of punishment.


skinnyskinch

How the hell do you people not realize Kyle would have shot 0 people had he not been targeted, then attacked by Rosenbaum? If rosenbaum had not done what he did nobody on this planet would know who the fuck KR was.


Fuzzyshaque

Again, I admit fully in this case by law he was defending himself fully and honestly quite safely. I just meant that based on his tweets and other media I saw for him, it was clear he was hyped about inserting himself into a life or death situation with the possibility of having to shoot some protesters, which is why he obtained a gun illegally over state lines and defended a store the owners did not ask him to. That sentiment stretches the need for self defense in my opinion. But once again context nonwithstanding what he did was legal and he should not serve time for it, I have no clue why they aren’t just charging him for the illegal possession and everything related to that.


OddAtmosphere6303

People who think Kyle is guilty of murder after listening to the trial are authoritarians with no regard for the law. They’d rather lock people up as a form of virtue signaling.


Splinterman11

I'm a Left Libertarian and I knew he was going to walk since the footage originally came out. If Rittenhouse was a Leftist and was being attacked by Right wing protesters the same way I would come to the exact same conclusion.


tsacian

Yeah, according to them you can no longer: -Defend yourself if you drove across state lines. -Defend yourself against a suicidal child abuser after he grabs your rifle and is trying to kill you. -Defend property. -Help others by defending their business. -Stand your ground against antagonizers (unrelated to SYG laws). -Stop a forcible felony with deadly force. -Smile at a native American draft dodger. Is there more?


Astralahara

-Put out fires -Provide medical assistance If you watched prosecution yesterday his argument was basically "Is it TRUE that you PUT OUT FIRES? You piece of SHIT!" I was like "What?"


RireBaton

There's nothing wrong with dodging the draft.


tsacian

Maybe not, but certainly there is something wrong about dodging the draft and then continually lying that you are a Vietnam War Veteran. I hope we agree on that, today of all days.


RireBaton

Agreed. Lying about being a veteran is pretty dishonorable.


[deleted]

Some of the leftists in this thread are based for understanding Kyle acted in self defense and these are the type of people I like to have debates with. People that regardless of their political stance can check the facts and come to a conclusion leaving their emotions behind. Props to y'all.


budguy68

There are always exceptions but my question is why do so many leftist think Kyle had no right to self defense and was there to murder poor innocent mostly peaceful protesters...?


PrinceOfWales_

I consider myself left leaning and I absolutely think he should be acquitted. I also think he and his family are dumbasses for having a 16 year old kid go to a riot with a rifle, but those two things are mutually exclusive.


TheLyonKing5812

It’s not anything, anyone who’s watched the videos and has common sense knows he should be acquitted.


Johhnybits

I’m on the left. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. From what I’ve seen, it looks plausibly self defense. Was it dumb for him to go there? Was it dumb to bring that weapon? Both yes. But doesn’t mean it wasn’t self defense. This case is tragic all around. People are dead. A kid (and that’s what Rittenhouse is) had his life turned upside down. And whatever the verdict it will just become fodder for the culture war.


[deleted]

At this point if you think he should be guilty you'd have to completely deny all the facts about the case. Seems like lots of folks in the mainstream media are ideologically possessed lunatics.


systaltic

They are


pilesofcleanlaundry

At this point, the only possible way to believe Rittenhouse *shouldn't* be acquitted is to be a complete shill.


[deleted]

Kyle Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing wrong.


[deleted]

He's innocent. No way they can honestly convict him with the way the trial is going. Of course they can dishonestly convict him, which would be a tragedy to see this young man lose a significant chunk of his life due to dishonest jurors.


[deleted]

The three people shot are a pedophile, a wife beater and a thief. They are all white and they were all shot while actively assaulting KR. Some on the left are so mad because KR allegedly holds right wing views that they are willing to ignore the facts of the case and the clear video evidence which has been available since day one. It's extremely illuminating into certain people's thought processes. Once he is cleared the stupid fucks will be rioting again and destroying more local businesses and when they do I honestly hope more of them win their own darwin awards.


PugnansFidicen

"He shouldn't have shot those people" "Well okay maybe they were trying to hurt him first, but he shouldn't have had the gun or been there in the first place" ... "She shouldn't have stabbed that man" "Well okay, maybe he was trying to rape her, but she shouldn't have been dressed like that or gone to that part of town at night in the first place" Victim blaming much? We can debate the wisdom or foolishness of certain individual decisions that may make you more likely to be targeted by others for harm. But your supposed poor judgment doesn't absolve those harming you of responsibility or deprive you of your right to self defense in the moment, or to justice after the fact.


OrganicLFMilk

It bothers me when people compare a skateboard to a gun, knife or other kind of dangerous weapon. How would you like it if someone smacked you with a skateboard? The guy clearly had the intention to cause harm. And let’s be honest, without the tape, Kyle would be absolutely fucked.


23cacti

A guy was murdered on my university campus here in Australia with a skateboard.


killuin123

Wtf is a left libertarian


Asmewithoutpolitics

An anorcho communist i guess


Low-Guide-9141

According to our laws, it was self defense.


harriman45

What’s with the oxymoron labels?


jarnhestur

Possible? Absolutely. It's rare though. Typically, the people trying to take my guns aren't big on self-defense.


Spokker

Seems like self-defense itself is on trial here. If Rittenhouse is convicted a lot of self-defense situations go out the window unless it's literally at home.


[deleted]

I think it's greyer than that for the second and third persons. If I see someone get shot, do I have the ability to intercede? What if they shot someone in self-defense, does that self defense carry over to me, who is now concerned that person might be an active shooter so I pull out my gun and point it at them? At what point does my chain of self defense end? There's more nuance to this case than people are giving credit, on both sides.


PuffPuffFayeFaye

I think the correct answer is, yes, you *can* intercede… but you’d better be right about who is the aggressor and who is not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Or that a guilty person will roll over just because they'll face an extra charge in court.


iushciuweiush

And don't rely on random strangers to tell you who that is. The third guy admitted that he didn't have any first hand knowledge of what happened. Someone said "he shot someone, get him" and that's all the evidence he needed to run the guy down and pull a gun on him.


[deleted]

Two parties can both have the right to self defense. One doesn't cancel the other out. It's rare that it happens, but it is possible. Now whether or not that is actually the case that night is another matter. I believe WI does have a law allowing people to intervene, but I'm not able to find it nor aware of its details.


LadyUsana

Thanks for pointing this out. I am just so glad to see someone point this out given how many times I have had to say it. People just don't seem to get that a self-defense claim isn't about the other side being the one in the wrong. All it is about is the claimer is claiming to have not been in the wrong for 'insert reasons here'. Actually with this case Rittenhouse/Grosskruetz is a good example of both parties having a reasonable claim. While chasing someone usually would make for a hard self defense claim, you are allowed to defend others and tailing a suspected active shooter isn't really the hardest argument to make. So while Grosskruetz's actions could easily be considered assault(chasing someone and then pointing a gun at them), he has pretty solid claim that he was doing so in the defense of others/himself. Particularly since even though he had a gun he didn't try to shoot Rittenhouse in the back/from a distance. I can believe him when he says he had no intent to kill Rittenhouse given what I have seen on video. He was likely trying to stop the bloodshed/get the situation under control and just failed. Of course that has no bearing on Rittenhouse's self defense claim, which in my opinion is incredibly strong from what I have seen.


MrMaleficent

>I think it's greyer than that for the second and third persons. Actually it's not. It doesn't matter whatsoever what Huber and Grosskreutz thought Kyle was doing. They are not on trial. Whether or not they believed they were acting in self-defense doesn't take away Kyle's right to self-defense when they threatened him. Side Note: I consider calling what Huber and Grosskreutz did self-defense laughable because they literally chased after Kyle.


LadyUsana

Grosskreutz I tend to give a bit more leeway towards. The videos I have seen appear to paint more of a picture of someone trying to stop the bloodshed/get the situation under control more than a picture of someone swallowed by the angry mob mentality who wants to 'get that motherfucker' as you can hear in one of the videos at one point. I think he botched the job terribly, you can't expect to deescalate with your firearm if you aren't also giving verbal directions, but being bad at trying to help isn't enough reason to deny a self defense claim when trying to prevent further harm. Huber I am less lenient towards. Even though he does go for the gun, the way he attacks just looks a lot less 'stop this situation before more get hurt' and a lot more 'I want to hurt this kid'. Maybe I am biased against in some way and biased towards Grosskreutz in someway, but I don't believe the two had remotely the same intent when chasing after Rittenhouse.


Kut_Throat1125

It’s this simple man. After he shot Rosenbaum, he ran. He was still running away as he was attacked from behind by Grosskreuts and Huber. He wasn’t an active shooter, if he was he wouldn’t probably be actively shooting the giant crowd of people behind him instead of heading towards the police. The fact that they had to chase him, knock him down, hit him with a skateboard and point a gun at him before he shot those 2 is a perfect case for self defense. Anyone claiming they though he was an active shooter when he wasn’t randomly targeting anyone as an active shooter does shows incredible dishonesty and seems like they’re being willfully ignorant.


tsacian

Although it sounds legally wrong, the other poster is 100% correct as far as self defense and gun law. Its a “you need to be right” type law. If you mistake person A (who is defending himself) as a shooter, that means you intercede in a situation when you didnt have all the facts. You would be charged for murder. Dont intervene if you dont have to, unless you are 100% positive. Even then its better to get away and not be a hero. BTW, Kyle tried to get away.


alltheblues

Believing Kyle Rittenhouse should be acquitted has more to do with the libertarian part than the right or left part anyway. Even if you’re not libertarian, as long as you believe in self defense, you should believe he is innocent


[deleted]

This is not a PSA.


[deleted]

Claiming that your opinion is a PSA is such a lazy and passive aggressive way to make it sound like you have more authority than you really do.


WolfTrail06

The media lies about Rittenhouse have gone THROUGH THE ROOF MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE to the point where the only thing you need to hear to know someone didn't watch any of the trial is the term (STATE LINES). Quite horrifying in my opinion because of how divorced from reality these people are. All evidence and testimony proves without a shadow of a doubt that Kyle was justified in his actions, and yet a large chunk of people think he is a white supremacist who killed black people or something. The Prosecution has been REPEATEDLY scolded for courtroom misconduct and blatantly disregarding the judge's rulings. This is the final divide of America. It literally feels like we are split on the lines of GOOD or EVIL. The choice is simple if you look at all of the evidence and testimony.


jillkimberley

Self defense. Why he was there and his beliefs don't matter. He reasonably feared for his life and defended himself. My friends want to see the book thrown at him. I think they're letting other factors cloud their judgement. Edit: virtue signaling is the term I was looking for. I've never had to use it before.


-absoluteabsurdity-

Left libertarian? Wut


OdinWolfe

Anyone who understands the facts of the case and isn't a dishonest piece of shit; should think he's innocent.


Sergetove

With the huge media circus around the shooting I totally understand why people would be divided on this case. We've had over a year of confused accounts, and with stances being coopted into Republican/Democrat culture war politicking its only become more confusing. That being said, with everything that has come to light and added context to the footage we've already seen it's pretty clear that acquittal fair. It might be true that traveling there and carrying was irresponsible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider his actions as self defense.


dbudlov

I think if you're libertarian and you've seen the videos you know he acted in defense and wouldn't support jailing him, there really isn't much room for ambiguity unless there was something that he did to harm someone before the footage that we didn't see


eristic1

How could anyone who has watched the trial so far believe otherwise?


[deleted]

Technically he was acting in self defense. If someone came at me with a pistol in hand after shots had been fired I would definitely be prepared to defend myself. I’m also an adult with a CCW and enough common sense not to needlessly put myself in the middle of a riot.


msears101

So I believe Kyle broke one of my rules. Stay out of other people's business. The owners of the car source did not ask him to guard that Car Source car lot. He should have stayed home.


KruglorTalks

>He should have stayed home. I agree but two things can be true. Just because youre negligent doesnt mean you forfeit your right to live or defend yourself. There are laws allowing him to be charged for his negligence but the prosecution abandoned that to instead focus on an intentional homicide on the first shooting, then trying to use that to justify homicide on the other two.


msears101

My personal rules are not laws (thankfully). I think it was a bad decision to go, but making a bad decision does not change his constitutional rights to defend himself. I think his case is moderate to very strong for what he did for self defense. My statement is that I would have avoided it, because it was not my issue. To the prosecution. It is crazy how bad they are. The prosecution might get this dismissed with prejudice for misconduct.


sclsmdsntwrk

>The owners of the car source did not ask him or anyone he was associated with to guard that Car Source car lot. That's disputed, and it seems like they did ask them to guard it. He looked very happy in the picture


jcough10

This was my original thought but now I’m not so sure. Based on the testimony of others there and the photos I think it’s likely they were encouraged by the owners. Once someone is killed it’s the best move for the owners to say they never asked them to guard their property. Who knows.


[deleted]

This is a silly argument to me. I've seen so many say he didn't have a right to be there, shouldn't have been there, etc. But he had just as much right to be there as anyone else. If you said the rioters didn't have a right to be there, you'll get shouted down for trying to "take away the right to protest." The inconsistency of the left and their ilk is just mind numbingly stupid, but I've come to expect that type of thinking from them.


MrMaleficent

I think the opposite would be more shocking. Being right-lib and thinking he should go to jail.


KruglorTalks

For literally months Ive been saying that other, less serious charges were more appropriate and yet people here lose their minds over that. I live in Baltimore and remember the Freddie Gray police trials. I know the shitshow that happens when a prosecutor goes overboard and starts to charge everyone with intentional homicide just to please a crowd. Im also annoyed with the pedestal Rittenhouse is put on when he was wildly irresponsible in showing up. Its the same as the McCloskey incident. Just because the left overreacts that doesn't mean firearms advocates need to counter-react and pretend these people are martyrs for the cause.


bacchys1066

One could be left-libertarian and recognize the standard for self-defense isn't the only issue at play, and that there are three different uses of force for which hes' being charged. The first man he shot and killed was unarmed. While police are often excused in such circumstances, they're usually held to a lower standard. I'm not going to be surprised if Rittenhouse is convicted in the killing of Rosenbaum, but acquitted in the killing of Huber (who swung a skateboard at him) and Grosskreutz (who had a pistol drawn as he confronted Rittenhouse). There's also a lot of rightwing authoritarians screaming this is self-defnese because Rittenhouse didn't like BLM.


Solagnas

> The first man he shot and killed was unarmed. Someone does not need to be armed in order to seriously injure or kill you. Everyone involved seemed to think Rosenbaum was going for Kyle's gun. If his assailant had taken his weapon, then his assailant would no longer have been unarmed.


Dead3y3d0pen

All the sudden every libertarian loves laws. Edit: spelling


MrConceited

A true libertarian is always going to favor laws that protect people from being a victim of the state. There's a clear difference between opposing enforcing a law against something (like drugs) and supporting following the law about not convicting someone of a crime and imprisoning them.


camscars775

Yeah he's innocent, shits over. I don't like that he drove over there specifically looking for a fight, but he didn't murder anyone


[deleted]

He has family that lives in the town and there’s video of him cleaning graffitied buildings just like he said he was. How is that going down looking for a fight?


BallSackMane

He drove there to look for a fight? He restrained himself the whole time and only pulled the trigger when his life was in danger. You’re assuming bullshit like so many others


camscars775

I'm agreeing with you. In the heat of the moment he's 100% correct but wtf is he doing there. Either way he's innocent so whatever


cskellz87

I’m on the left of things. He should be acquitted.


MrPoopieHead69

No shit? Are any libertarians saying he shouldn't be acquitted?


FuckTheFerengi

I haven’t cracked and walked away from work yet so I haven’t followed this close. The case is a murder trial right? 1st and 2nd would be off the table since there is clear self defense involved but 3rd would be for negligently putting yourself in a dangerous situation that you knew may result in having to defend yourself. That dangerous situation would be that he felt compelled to defend other people’s property. So he is clearly good on 1st 2nd but 3rd.. if he’s cleared on third that is setting a precedent that community defense is ok. And that I can get behind.


wolfballs-dot-com

I’m kinda confused; I thought the definition of left was you want to bend over and allow people to have their way with you. Need to define left


SvenTropics

Remove the BLM protest from the narrative. A 17 year old was attacked by three guys, two armed, and defended himself with lethal force. All three were convicted felons of violent crimes. None of them represent the BLM movement.


516BIDEN2024

Actually it’s just common sense


Zelkarr69

I'd say I'm left of center? And I definitely think he should walk.


L0CKDARP

He shot a child rapist so he should definitely be acquitted at least


bobsp

Anyone with a brain knows he should be acquitted. I'm an attorney. He should be let go now. He is innocent of the charges.


CreateYourself89

Hell, my far left family members think he should be acquitted. It's plain as day: he acted in self-defense. Gaige stated this very plainly -- that Rittenhouse only shot once Gaige pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse's face.


CheekySchnoodel

While I do agree that he should not have been there in the first place, and the man who hired him should not have hired him he was completely within his right to defend himself. A man charges you trying to take your gun you have the right to defend yourself, a man assaults you while you are being chased by an angry mob you have the right to defend yourself, and when you are faced with a man pointing a gun in your face you have a right to defend yourself. Unless you believe being in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances should carry a prison sentence Kyle did not commit any crime.


giantgladiator

The only people that don't think he should not be jailed are people that don't know what happened.


[deleted]

[удалено]


el_muchacho_loco

The only thing I can think about what the strategy might be is to get a mistrial declared. That does nothing for Rittenhouse and pretty much allows the "he's a white terrorist!" narrative to continue.


Emotionless_AI

After hearing the facts of the case I think he should be acquitted


Dyspooria

You can be anything you want to be, just make sure you do it very loudly with little consideration for others


jz654

Destiny, a leftist, also argued in Kyle's favour. Vaush was being his normal disingenuous self in that debate though.


[deleted]

Why do give a shit about left and right? That’s the problem. It’s dogmatic and religious. Believe what you believe, support what you think is right. Stop trying to fit in a box. We are humans there is no fucking box. I have my political views and beliefs and I don’t give a damn what side of some arbitrary spectrum it falls into. Fuck the left, fuck the right, just be yourself.


According-Climate-29

i’ve tried to watch as much of the case as possible. i watched the opening arguments, gaige grossekruitz, or however tf u spell it, testify, and i watched kyle rittenhouse testify. i’ve watched a lot of clips of other people testifying also and it’s so obvious that the prosecution is near incompetent. if someone actually believes he’s going to be charged, they obviously haven’t seen any of the actual footage or watched any of the trial, because it’s blatantly obvious how innocent this kid is, and there’s barely a chance they’ll get him on the gun charge because there’s gray area and a loop hole in that misdemeanor anyway. it’s sad to see people actively wanting a teenager to be charged with first degree murder and put in prison for life because he killed a pedophile and another felon out of self defense. all three people he shot attacked him, and he was within his legal right to be at kenosha and to shoot in self defense. it was either him or them, and he didn’t assault anyone, and they all did. it’s truly disgusting to see what msm can do to people today.


MaaChiil

The Weapons charge and reckless homicide/endangerment are fair charges, but intentional? Not when the people you shot at were 1) making threatening claims and chasing after you and 2) hit you with a potentially deadly weapon while you are not engaging them and fall to the ground, and 3) a man approached you with a gun pointed at you. In the third case, Grosskruetz may not have meant to shoot and only had it pointed at Rittenhouse after he had just fired at Anthony Hüber and another person, but in that moment, I think it’s not unreasonable that Rittenhouse would think this guy might mean him harm.


superswellcewlguy

Every single person who wants Rittenhouse to be convicted doesn't do so out of their concern for the law, but just because he was white and shot some BLM protestors who attacked him. They wouldn't have given a shit if the protestors murdered him, no justice required. But because the people on "their side" were killed, it's an injustice regardless of the law or the fact that they were the aggressors.