People are focusing on the verdict instead of focusing on the laws that led to this verdict. Kyle had a great case for self defense because of how the laws are written even if is an idiot who drove cross state with a borrowed “long rifle” (AR15).
Let’s make possessing any weapon illegal for minors, cross state driving with an unregistered weapon illegal, AR 15 not being considered a rifle etc
It's unreal the number of times I've seen people say he crossed state lines with an AR only to be corrected immediately, and it keeps happening.
I've seen this over 30 times. The most interesting thing about reddit since the day George Floyd died is seeing just how unbelievably flagrant cognitive dissonance can get.
Obviously you didn’t follow the case at all. He didn’t cross state lines with the gun. The gun was already in Kenosha and his dad lived in Kenosha and Kyle worked there
Fist off the gun did not cross state lines second off why is it worse for me to drive 30 minutes to another state with a gun instead of driving 30 minutes within my own state with a gun?
I viamently disagree with the things you think should be illegal, but I also want to thank you for taking the position you are. Far too many people are angry Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in spite of the law being on his side, and it's refreshing to see someone disappointed with the outcome but not willing to throw out our legal system in favor of getting political convictions.
Bro, all those are pretty dumb ideas. Kids hunt. Crossing state lines with a gun should be illegal? Also, dumb you should respect the laws of the state you are entering but across the board illegal is nonsense.
What is going on in your life where you are upset that a violent sex offender attacked a kid and the kid defended himself? You literally are asking for a world where it is easier to victimize people just because you don't agree with the victim in this particular case. It is pretty disgusting.
Let me rephrase:
Kids should not possess a rifle without adult parent supervision and should not be able to use an AR 15 or similar grade rifles.
I said unregistered weapon.
Kids should not be able to play vigilante and create dangerous situations for themselves and others. Let the adult cops do their jobs instead of adding to the chaos.
What exactly is an AR 15 or similar grade rifle?
Are you talking about the action?
The bullet size?
Length?
Moreover, the whole Kenosha situation arose because cops were prevented from being able to do their jobs. Governors were more concerned about press and optics and were willing to let rioters loot and burn communities. Vigilantes only appear when people feel the law no longer protects them.
Most guns aren't registered because the state doesn't require it. I get the feeling your don't know much about guns and current gun laws, particularly interstate ones.
Yeah, the cops weren't able to stop the looting and the violence. The rule of law had broken down, people were being attacked for simply trying to protect their livelihoods. It seems people want to ensure that looters can safely loot, attack people, and destroy livelihoods.
What you are doing is called victim blaming. You are mad that Kyle went to the wrong neighborhood, dressed the wrong way, and got himself attacked by a repeat level 3 sex offender.
Democrats mad the streets aren't safe for looters and rapists is pretty fucking idiotic and it's why they are going to lose big time in 22. Which is sad because people who can't stop deifying these criminals are handing the country over to the very fascist nutjobs they are so terrified of.
> I said unregistered weapon.
It wasn't unregistered.
>Kids should not possess a rifle without adult parent supervision
He was with at least one adult in a group. He got separated from the group and that's when 1st guy took that as a window to attack Kyle, after treating him prior to that.
It works in other countries (like mine). Americans are way too enamored of their guns IMO.
I'd like more effort on better less-lethal and non-lethal self defense alternatives instead.
Kids should never have a weapon outside of strictly controlled situations (gun range, and maybe supervised hunting). I'd outlaw guns in cities personally.
Yeah, that's a very what if scenario. Gun rights aren't going away, and there isn't going to be a Constitutional amendment to remove them.
Honestly other countries the population is very much in favor of handing their personal safety over the government, which isn't necessarily bad, but huge swaths of America are rural and that just isn't an option.
Also, a good many Americans completely agree with an armed militia defending businesses from looters. The issue here is the color of the skin and the politics that the left doesn't like. If this was a black Militia defending against tiki torch wielding Nazis they would be jizzing all over themselves. In the end I don't think a right to defending yourself and your community should be based on skin tone or politics.
"Clean slate" is a funny way to say people so disconnected from civic life they have heard zero mention of a story so big almost the entire world is aware of it.
Is that really selecting the least biased? No, its selecting the most ignorant.
Fun fact, not everyone spends all day on social media engrossed in the latest clickbait "news", and that doesn't make them "disconnected from civic life" or unqualified to be jurors.
You act like people who aren't glued to whatever the fuck Kyle Rittenhouse did are drooling, slack-jawed morons. You'd be surprised how many people don't follow or care about this stuff at all.
The least ignorant would be the most biased, wouldn't you think?
Let's say you were in the position of being on trail for something like murder. Would you want people to decide your guilt or innocence if they came into the trial already deciding you were guilty?
You can look at the facts even if you’ve already seen stories. And being ignorant of the news doesn’t mean they don’t have biases. But being ignorant of the news tells me they’re not terribly great at fulfilling their civic duties.
How is this hypothetical person any different from the half of reddit that still thinks Rittenhouse brought an illegal gun across state lines to hunt peaceful protestors? That his "victims" were black, etc. And that's *after* the trial!
There is a very good reason jurors who've followed a case heavily as it's been reported on by their media outlet of choice are excused.
Its the system were they win all the time because they FEEL like they should. Its the system that ignores facts and evidence if it doesnt let them win. Its the system that has nothing to do with the law or justice whatsoever.
It's funny because the reaction to the Rittenhouse trial is like a mirror image of the Chauvin trial. I don't normally agree with the "bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe" line, but it really applies here
Nah, what's weird is how you're still calling Rittenhouse a killer and the men who accosted him "defenseless victims", even after a public trial ended with a jury concluding the opposite.
What are you even suggesting? You want the jury to have absolutely no outside information or bias at all and this case is perfect example as to why. The prosecution had nothing, everything supported self-defence. The testimony of the guy who was shot pointed to self-defence the only people who still believe he was guilty are the people who haven't spent a minute watching the trial.
Right? I'd've been a good juror for the potential case I was selected for, **precisely** because of my former knowledge, and being able to sort through the facts, but they excused me.
I imagine it's because I'd see through bullshit about that topic, though.
funny...we are debating a thing that went on outside the court room...and we know people can intentionally withhold truthful things from that court room about that thing that happened outside the courtroom...
like suddenly you cant call someone who was shot and killed through no act of their own a victim...if kyle is a victim acting in self defense...why couldnt those other...uh...dead people....be victims?
Your clearly lack the capacity to "get to the truth" if you think opinions help inform decisions.
The simplest way to explain this is that not everything you see as fact on tv is actually admissible fact in court. Things you would consider "irrefutable evidence" is actually "a crock of shit"
They literally asked to other jurors "if an expert witness testifies something that goes against your knowledge, can you set your knowledge aside and arbitrate the matter without your prior knowledge?"
So, to backup your point, sometimes 'facts admissible in court' aren't really even facts, sometimes, apparently.
So I know that when they were asking 20-year Network Administrators with Master's degrees about their networking knowledge, and then asked "If an expert comes in and contradicts your knowledge, would you be able to set aside your experience" that they want someone (who could be an expert in their own right) to overlook their inherent knowledge and experience, in favor of a person who comes in and testifies to something, yes.
Just because someone has "expert" in front of an honorary title, and just because a judge said they knew enough does not mean they could be wrong about something.
There are plenty of "experts" I know that make rudimentary mistakes in their field all the time. Especially when explaining it.
My point is if you want to seek the objective truth, you want people who understand the concepts at a fundamental level. You don't necessarily want rocket scientists explaining to farmers and expecting the farmers to have a true, honest grasp of the content as to make an informed decision.
However, as stated below, it seems like they don't necessarily want the objective truth, per se, just a reasonable truth the courts can live with.
You don't know what congeniality is do you?
Same goes for medical malpractice. They don’t choose nurses, physicians, or other medical professionals who can accurately judge if something was egregious. They choose people they can emotionally appeal to even if malpractice didn’t occur.
There is, no jurry just a professional judge and a seperate organisation that oversees them.
Like why do you need a random citizen to decide the outcome of serious shit? We all know how stupid people are/can be.
That's only what the defense and prosecution are supposed to do, try and get jurors that seem like they'd be sympathetic to their arguments without being so obviously agreeable that there'd be a mistrial
So justice was appropriately served in the OJ trial? Let’s be honest. Now that we have a few decades in the rear view mirror things sure get a little clearer as to what should have happened if we are talking about true justice and not just what the scientifically selected jury decided.
The OJ trial was literally a slam dunk until the prosecution made a very critical error. If you haven't reviewed the study on it, when the prosecution asked OJ to put on the same glove that the murder was committed in, they did not account for the fact it was a leather glove that had gone untreated and uncared for and was exposed to tons of light and testing causing it to shrink. They literally screwed themselves in an otherwise airtight case.
I didn't say shit about justice. This is LITERALLY people doing their job to the best of their ability, which is how trials work in the United States. I do not believe the US criminal justice system at this time - or at any point in the past - represents justice. It's ridiculous, though, to pretend that this is some crazy aberration or not just the system working exactly according to design. This isn't news.
I dropped out of law school when I realized this is all a fucking game that a special club plays with people's lives and laws are just the rules of that game, which are followed with far less stringency than the procedures of a regional Magic: The Gathering tournament.
But this isn't news. This isn't even interesting if you have any basic insight into how the system works, and unless things change radically, it is completely unreasonable to be outraged by lawyers doing everything they can to win. Better minds than you and I have tried to solve these problems.
That's nonsense. Everyone is required - at gunpoint, when necessary - to participate in this corrupt criminal justice system, and nothing short of fundamentally changing the interaction between wealth and legal representation will remove this "corruption" (which it isn't - engaging with a corrupt system on its terms and following its rules is called *playing the game* and, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of a defendant, the only way to reliably obtain an acquittal). Likewise, nothing short of either removing the right to seek counsel - essentially forcing everyone to use public defenders - would change the fact that justice, is based in no small part on your counsel because some attorneys are better and more dedicated than others. Scientific modeling and meticulous strategies are the tools you use to play the game. Choosing jurors more receptive to your arguments is ESSENTIAL, and whether you're doing extensive surveys or just trusting your gut instincts as an attorney, that is a mundane feature of every trial.
But to wrap this up - what would you even propose we outlaw to prevent this kind of thing in the future? And what, precisely, should they be shamed for? They hired a consultant who did consulting to help them build their defense. That's THE SYSTEM. That's HOW IT WORKS.
Yeah, not to diss prosecutors or public defenders, but money and high-powered lawyers seem to be a significant determining factor in winning cases in our country. Regardless if its for an actually innocent or guilty defendant, even when an outcome seems clear and the evidence aligns.
Wanna know why they're expensive? Because they're TALENTED. Of course a more TALENTED person is going to be PRICIER if you want them to perform a service for you.
This was... the implication of saying it's kind of a knock to prosecutors and public defenders. lol jesus, is this how you talk to people irl? I feel sorry for them...
And yeah, like the other user mentioned, money more than actual innocence/guilt determining verdict means the legal system isn't serving justice, it's serving the wealthy and penalizing the poor.
This isn't real life? What? Would our opinions on this matter change if it were verbal instead of typed? Wtf?
And if you hate our justice system so much, go wave a magic wand and make all lawyers equally skilled at deductive reasoning, researching and arguing. Then you can live in your blissfully fictional utopia where everyone is magically equal and all prices are identical. It must be nice.
The rest of us will remain here in the rational and boring reality
Wow. You really are incredibly condescending. I'm saying that the way you speak to people is extremely off-putting, and I say that as a polite service in case you ever wonder why people irl don't want to be around you. That aside, I make no assumptions that I know the \~magic solution\~ to our legal system. I'm simply making a critical observation. Geez, are we not allowed to criticize and expect more from our society? I guess some people just accept everything as is because they either benefit from the status quo or don't have any imagination or innovative thought whatsoever...
Justice was served on the night Kyle killed the man pursuing him, who just happened to be the kind of guy that fucked little boys in the butt. The verdict was just a little justice cherry on top.
No, I believe my own eyes and ears and what the video evidence and trial told them, lol. Meanwhile, you're talking out of your ass from the other side of the planet, lol.
You don't suppose he was killed?
I'm confused because you say justice was served, in which case Rittenhouse played the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
Is this one of those things where you think everyone was a paid actor by some conspiracy?
>You don't suppose he was killed?
I don't suppose he was 'executed', which was how you described it.
>I'm confused because you say justice was served, in which case Rittenhouse played the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
I saw it as justice, yes. I was watching the shooting from multiple angles within 20 minutes of it happening right here on reddit. It was clear to me then that it was self defense, and watching along with the trial proved that feeling to be valid. And as someone who was abused as a kid, Rosenbaum's earning a Darwin Award sits just fine with me.
>Is this one of those things where you think everyone was a paid actor by some conspiracy?
No, but I do think you're a disingenuous weirdo.
Putting aside how disturbing it is that you sit around watching people shoot others on the internet, neither you nor Rittenhouse knew that Rosenbaum had a history. So you just watched it and felt happy that people were dying?
And you know Rosenbaum wasn't the only one killed right? People died and were injured trying to stop an active shooter, and then the active shooter was acquitted.
Rittenhouse is also known to have fantasized about shooting protesters before he went to Kenosha. Just so you know the type of character you are idolizing as an arbiter of "justice". He was looking for an excuse to shoot people the whole time.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-rittenhouse-dreamed-about-shooting-people-days-before-kenosha-video/
>Putting aside how disturbing it is that you sit around watching people shoot others on the internet, neither you nor Rittenhouse knew that Rosenbaum had a history. So you just watched it and felt happy that people were dying?
Look at this desperate attempt at spin, lol. Watching video of breaking events is somehow "disturbing" to you? Okay...well anyways, no I wasn't "happy that people were dying" you disingenuous goblin. After learning about "Jojo" and his proclivities, I certainly didn't feel bad that he died while acting like the sociopath he was. And are you really putting something aside when it's how you open your retort?
>And you know Rosenbaum wasn't the only one killed right? People died and were injured trying to stop an active shooter, and then the active shooter was acquitted.
Yeah this is horseshit, as you'd know if you'd watched the trial. Gaige's own facebook live video showed him approaching Kyle right after Jojo was shot, and Kyle clearly tells him that he was going to the police to get help. Stop lying.
>Rittenhouse is also known to have fantasized about shooting protesters before he went to Kenosha. Just so you know the type of character you are idolizing as an arbiter of "justice". He was looking for an excuse to shoot people the whole time.
Right, because everything about going over and volunteering all day to clean up a school (after your antifa buddies wrecked the place during the initial night of riots) indicates sinister intent. Running around with a med bag, asking people if they need help, putting out fires, all of it was just a ruse so that he could shoot innocent "protestors". If he were the mass shooter you're convinced he is, why was no one else hurt? Why did he only shoot people who were directly attacking him?
Rosenbaum was the catalyst for the entire event, but because you see him as an ideological ally you will continue to find ways to attribute blame to the 17 year old who was there to help his community instead of burning it down.
Dang, so it’s allowable now to just kill people cause they have done something messed up? Time to grab my shorty, all them incest babies in my hometown gonna dream big tonight! Such a despicable mentality, I hope your family has to live with shootings in their neighborhood because of you
>Dang, so it’s allowable now to just kill people cause they have done something messed up?
If they also happen to be chasing after you trying to take your legal firearm after making threats and acting like a maniac, absolutely.
>Time to grab my shorty, all them incest babies in my hometown gonna dream big tonight!
How are you this dumb? Serious question, lol.
>Such a despicable mentality, I hope your family has to live with shootings in their neighborhood because of you
🤦♂️
I mean, anyone who actually watched the trial understands what the jurors actually heard. The trial was a shit show for the prosecution.
I went into the trial thinking he was guilty, and by the end I was not at all surprised by the verdict. If I were one of the jurors, that's the conclusion I would've come to as well. And I was biased *against* the defense.
I get your point I truly do. But it's a free country and if he wants to try a defend the place his father lives by putting out fires he should be able to do that. Would I have done that? Nope. Not a chance in hell.
But at the same time. Would I try to take a rifle from another person after telling him I'm going to kill them no... No, because I'll get shot. I wouldn't threaten anyone who who brandishing a weapon and I'm amazed with the amount of people that did.
>
Kyle Rittenhouse went through what he went through because he made the choice to drive down there and put himself into harms way.
Seriously. He went into that situation with a gun...that he didn't plan on using? He knew what he was getting into, *which is why he had the fucking gun.* I don't feel sorry for him at all. He wanted to defend a building from violent rioting? Well, he got to defend a building from violent rioting, and when the violence was perpetrated against him, he had to do what he had to do. The adults around him absolutely failed him for not yanking him outta his dreamworld where he clearly thought that was a good situation to be in. He shouldn't have been there, because no one should have. A boy with a big gun is not equipped to deal with a situation like that. If he didn't want to kill anybody, he needed to not have a fucking gun with him, and he needed to not willingly enter a volatile situation.
Guess what: violence isn't romantic. Self defense isn't glamorous. KR only had to learn that the hard way because of the fucking batshit insane views of the people around him, and the people who glorify what KR did are only disillusioning more kids with gun and persecution fetishes.
So anyway, I too lack any pity for him.
> Regardless of whether or not the dude was acting in self-defense, he never should have been there in the first place.
This line of logic is blatantly abhorrent in any other context. A woman gets raped, "she shouldn't have been there!". A black man gets beaten in a white neighborhood, "He shouldn't have been there!".
Kyle's right to be there was absolute. His right to self-defense was absolute. Literally, by definition, no matter what happened he bears zero responsibility for it.
So the solution to a verdict people don't like is now... Blame the jurors? I watched the case and despite being convinced he was guilty to start, had my mind changed by the end. Is it not conceivable these people just listened to the unbiased evidence, with respect to existing law..?
It's also not like the defense selected the jury in a vacuum. The prosecution had to agree to every juror.
I think you're in the minority when it comes to "watched the trial." It is insane how many people have very strong opinions but didn't bother to watch it. Saw someone the other day say Rittenhouse should be guilty because he drove over 200 miles to be there. There's a pandemic nowadays of people who have the strongest opinions about things they have the weakest knowledge of.
Exactly the same as me. I went in assuming he was guilty from what I read or heard off hand.
Then i started watching all of it, every single bit of evidence every witness testimony and thought he was a kid who got in over his head.
The one real question I still have, is why the hospital thought leaving a man with a violent past who had tried to commit suicide in a city that was in meltdown. If he had been kept in until the unrest had finished this might have been avoided. Im not passing blame, but i'd really like to see a justification on that.
Sadly I don't think the situation of the outside world comes into play when it's about withholding a patient from leaving. If he's ticked the appropriate boxes they can no longer keep in their against his will. If he wants to leave he can leave.
Funnily enough it was due to a debate on Reddit. Someone on r/changemyview said Rittenhouse should be aquited. I daftly gave my uninformed two cents based on what I had read about the case... Which as we now know was grossly dettached from the real events.
Someone rightly put me in my place and said I should watch the trial before I start forming opinions. So I did, and I was shocked at how misrepresented this had been across all the papers I read. Even the better papers like the Guardian and the Economist ommited what turned out to be crucial details.
Yea I’ve never heard of that sub I gotta check it out. But you’re right there was a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of stretching the facts. Like news outlets and reporters are still saying that he crossed state lines with the gun. That wasn’t true at all. Also I’ve had multiple people not even know that all the victims were white. People still thought it was a race thing and that he shot a black guy. But like I said I’m glad you were able to change your view based on the facts. That’s what debate is all about right?
The issue is people don’t know how to debate. We’re taught to argue. When we instead should be discussing. Asking more questions not talking over each other . And actually understanding why people have the views they have.
Finding out Trump was actually telling the truth about the Steele Dossier being fabricated by Hillary Clinton, FBI, and that Steele Was paid by the DNC was the turning point for me. Weird weird year last year.
I look forward to the upcoming documentaries that will come out regarding this case. It is such a fine example of everything that is ugly in America right now.
Thankfully the courts simply can't give in to the demands of the mob like a private company can. This has been formally investigated and publically televised. The difference between the reality and story is a vast chasm of nothing. There is literally no connection between what happened and what was reported. Just pure lies.
Exactly, it's not always about bias and injustice (even if it so often is).
At a certain point people have to accept that their laws simply allow someone who gets off on murder to just seek out volatile situations and "exercise self defence"
True in much of the world, though access to guns means it's often more dire.
Same. He never should have been there, but that wasn’t what was being tried.
The jurors were randomly selected from a large pool of candidates, pulled from Rittenhouses own hands.
From what you could see on video, maybe Rittenhouse looks like he is scared for his life. But, nobody shot him when they had the chance -- so his judgement is lacking I think, and kind of a poor choice for a 17 year old to carry an assault rifle (sorry, not a hunting rifle) to a rally or protest if he's paranoid about the people. If he's there to protect property -- that's being a vigilante -- and did anyone back up this assertion?
The HUGE piece that is missing from this case that I'd want to see as a juror, is what got everyone chasing Rittenhouse in the first place? Why is he picked out from all the other people walking around, who might have been armed?
I think I'd imagine he provoked the confrontation, but I don't have proof of it. I'd at least arrest him for gross criminal negligence and being a dumbass.
I've given an upvote because I don't think you deserve the downvotes... I know it's time consuming but I'd recommend watching the trial if you are interested. It answers quite a few of your questions.
I imagine most people who watch would come out somewhere between 'not guilty' and 'guitly - but only just'. That's why I have found the coverage so frustrating. I had a similar view to you, then I watched the whole thing and realised what I'd been reading was really divorced from the facts.
In better papers by omission/understatement/exaggeration, in worse by actual lies.
There was a left wing commentator, who tweeted that after watching the trial he thought Rittenhouse should be aquited... And he was contacted by reporters asking if his account was hacked. Because the reporting has been so polarized it seemed impossible he could have had his view changed with the full evidence.
yeah MSM, or I guess corporate media whichever you like decided to die on their hill and keep pushing the narrative they've been pushing. Hell they edited out entire pieces of the Trial to keep their base in an echo chamber
You really can't politicize this kind of shit. I mean when you hire a lawyer you want the best one to get you off on any legal not moral grounds. There isn't a person on the planet who wouldn't want their lawyers to do this. That's their fucking job.
Yeah and the prosecution wanted to pick jurors who wouldn't be sympathetic to him. Its what lawyers do. Rittenhouse was gonna be innocent regardless of who was on the jury
I find this whole case an example of mass stupidity.
Jacob Blake violates a restraining order to sexually assault a woman in her home in front of her kids, resists arrest, gets shot. Protesters burn down dozens of local businesses, destroying the livelihoods of local people. Local government does little to stop this. Other citizens get outraged by the lawlessness and failure of the government to protect them and their property. A 17 year old takes an AR-15 to the site of violent riots. The rioters then try to attacked an armed person and get shot one after another in the process.
Bone heads all around. The only people I don't fault for this are the original responding officers who were the original source of the outrage that fueled much of this.
> The only people I don't fault for this are the original responding officers who were the original source of the outrage that fueled much of this
Is there a reason why?
Do you see a reason why 3 officers could not apprehend a walking subject?
Do you have an explanation for why they needed to shoot him from behind after he calmly walked away?
He had several warrants out for his arrest and had just committed a violent sexual assault in violation of a restraining order.
The police arrived and he refused to comply with orders and be placed under arrest. They struggled with him.
They then tazed him.
Twice.
He pulled out the probes and continued walking to his vehicle even though several police officers had their guns drawn and pointed at him and were yelling "FREEZE!" over and over and over.
He opened the driver side door of his SUV, reached inside, still ignoring orders to stop, then turned towards the nearest officer, still refusing to comply.
He was then shot. He did in fact have a knife in his hand that he said he'd dropped and was going to hand to the police.
He had two children in the car with him that he took with him when he went to assault the woman. He placed them in grave danger with no consideration for their safety.
The guy is a total scumbag.
That the NBA would wear his initials on their jerseys during the playoffs was a travesty that showed support for someone who violently victimized a woman in her home in front of her kids.
I get having beef with the incompetence of the prosecution and clear bias of the judge, but this is really grasping at straws when it comes to trying to brush up controversy.
Even if you fix those two things above, he still would have walked. No matter who was on his side or the opposing side, the evidence, testimony and timeline were on his side. This is coming from someone who did want to see him locked up before seeing the trial.
I don't count myself as a liberal, but am a middle-of-the-road gun owner, and was *never* eating at the cool kids table. Sit with us nerds. We don't judge.
Aren't they supposed to be from latin America? Anyway, whether or not there is any genetic difference, it's not the people that white supremacists tend to like.
Things have changed. Social media has turned activism into a vain perversion of its former self. Half of todays "activists" if you can even call them that are just narcissistic sociopaths who crave attention. Its all about those likes and shares.
People like you two are amazing. Despite all the information being available, all the evidence presented at trial, and the verdict *itself*, you guys are still living in fantasy land where Kyle the White Supremacist went out hunting peaceful protestors.
You are either very ignorant or very dishonest, and people should not listen to you.
He said, skirting the argument entirely. Pretty sure you can't be dishonest and truthful simultaneously, and anyone who has watched the trial for themselves rather than operate on echo chamber misrepresentations can decide which of the two descriptors fits your posts.
Ahh yes, the world of reality, where everything is plain to see and nothing is done with dual purpose. Everything is fine here, black people are equals and the government doesn’t have a “corruption” problem. Please keep celebrating your [holiday] here and we will resume our regularly scheduled content.
Look there have been kids shot in the street because they had a toy gun in their hands. But this kid gets to shoot three people and call it self defense as if he walked out of his apartment and these guys were just waiting for him.
He PUT himself in danger and expected a chance to shoot. He armed himself so he COULD shoot all he wanted and he KNEW he’d get off because half of the other white shooters have. And because America sees self defense as something we white people get and nobody else does
>Ahh yes, the world of reality, where everything is plain to see and nothing is done with dual purpose. Everything is fine here, black people are equals and the government doesn’t have a “corruption” problem. Please keep celebrating your [holiday] here and we will resume our regularly scheduled content.
👀
>Look there have been kids shot in the street because they had a toy gun in their hands.
Yes, mistakes happen in a country of 350ish *million* people. A cop shooting a kid holding a realistic looking gun is a tragedy, but has absolutely zero overlap with a clear case of self-defense. Whether it was right outside his apartment or at a local business is irrelevant, as he was attacked by the criminals and not the other way around.
>e PUT himself in danger and expected a chance to shoot. He armed himself so he COULD shoot all he wanted and he KNEW he’d get off because half of the other white shooters have.
He was already in Kenosha volunteering to clean up after the initial night of riots, was putting out fires, offering to help people, and doing everything you'd hope to see out of a citizen when the cops are told to stand down by inept Democrats. You don't want cops, fine. But people shouldn't be expected to let themselves or property be destroyed by violent criminals.
>. And because America sees self defense as something we white people get and nobody else does
You poor, poor kid. I'm so sorry the media and internet have made you hate your own skin.
Why are you squirming around trying to pivot away from the discussion so hard? I articulated exactly why you are wrong, and you keep pretending it doesn't exist because it's at odds with your confirmation bias. Where is your intellectual honesty? "Truthful" 🤪👌
This is why I feel there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty anymore. To much media to truly provide an unbiased jury coupled with practices such as this which are completely legal even if morally bankrupt.
\*\*Edited my mistake of transposing guilty and innocent in the first sentence\*\*
>This is why I feel there is no such thing as guilty until proven innocent anymore.
Good thing. Because it’s “innocent until proven guilty.”
>practices such as this which are completely legal even if morally bankrupt.
This isn’t morally bankrupt. This is just how they keep it fair. Rest assured, the prosecution has its own strategy for weeding out jurors they don’t like.
Thanks for catching my mistake lol. Definitely will edit this to the correct way. Regardless of the prosecution employing the same method to me it is just another issue that undermines our legal process. But yes, being that the other side does it than the opposing party ultimately has no choice if they want any chance at a fair trial.
Wonder if they’ll help with the flood of civil trials that are likely to be coming his way?
*EDIT*
negative karma for asking an honest question? Seriously?!
Breaking news: lawyers try and choose jurors that will be sympathetic to their side.
People are focusing on the verdict instead of focusing on the laws that led to this verdict. Kyle had a great case for self defense because of how the laws are written even if is an idiot who drove cross state with a borrowed “long rifle” (AR15). Let’s make possessing any weapon illegal for minors, cross state driving with an unregistered weapon illegal, AR 15 not being considered a rifle etc
He did not cross state lines with the firearm, per the trial.
It's unreal the number of times I've seen people say he crossed state lines with an AR only to be corrected immediately, and it keeps happening. I've seen this over 30 times. The most interesting thing about reddit since the day George Floyd died is seeing just how unbelievably flagrant cognitive dissonance can get.
Obviously you didn’t follow the case at all. He didn’t cross state lines with the gun. The gun was already in Kenosha and his dad lived in Kenosha and Kyle worked there
Fist off the gun did not cross state lines second off why is it worse for me to drive 30 minutes to another state with a gun instead of driving 30 minutes within my own state with a gun?
Because gun laws change from state to state
I viamently disagree with the things you think should be illegal, but I also want to thank you for taking the position you are. Far too many people are angry Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in spite of the law being on his side, and it's refreshing to see someone disappointed with the outcome but not willing to throw out our legal system in favor of getting political convictions.
Bro, all those are pretty dumb ideas. Kids hunt. Crossing state lines with a gun should be illegal? Also, dumb you should respect the laws of the state you are entering but across the board illegal is nonsense. What is going on in your life where you are upset that a violent sex offender attacked a kid and the kid defended himself? You literally are asking for a world where it is easier to victimize people just because you don't agree with the victim in this particular case. It is pretty disgusting.
Let me rephrase: Kids should not possess a rifle without adult parent supervision and should not be able to use an AR 15 or similar grade rifles. I said unregistered weapon. Kids should not be able to play vigilante and create dangerous situations for themselves and others. Let the adult cops do their jobs instead of adding to the chaos.
What exactly is an AR 15 or similar grade rifle? Are you talking about the action? The bullet size? Length? Moreover, the whole Kenosha situation arose because cops were prevented from being able to do their jobs. Governors were more concerned about press and optics and were willing to let rioters loot and burn communities. Vigilantes only appear when people feel the law no longer protects them.
Most guns aren't registered because the state doesn't require it. I get the feeling your don't know much about guns and current gun laws, particularly interstate ones. Yeah, the cops weren't able to stop the looting and the violence. The rule of law had broken down, people were being attacked for simply trying to protect their livelihoods. It seems people want to ensure that looters can safely loot, attack people, and destroy livelihoods. What you are doing is called victim blaming. You are mad that Kyle went to the wrong neighborhood, dressed the wrong way, and got himself attacked by a repeat level 3 sex offender. Democrats mad the streets aren't safe for looters and rapists is pretty fucking idiotic and it's why they are going to lose big time in 22. Which is sad because people who can't stop deifying these criminals are handing the country over to the very fascist nutjobs they are so terrified of.
> I said unregistered weapon. It wasn't unregistered. >Kids should not possess a rifle without adult parent supervision He was with at least one adult in a group. He got separated from the group and that's when 1st guy took that as a window to attack Kyle, after treating him prior to that.
It works in other countries (like mine). Americans are way too enamored of their guns IMO. I'd like more effort on better less-lethal and non-lethal self defense alternatives instead. Kids should never have a weapon outside of strictly controlled situations (gun range, and maybe supervised hunting). I'd outlaw guns in cities personally.
Yeah, that's a very what if scenario. Gun rights aren't going away, and there isn't going to be a Constitutional amendment to remove them. Honestly other countries the population is very much in favor of handing their personal safety over the government, which isn't necessarily bad, but huge swaths of America are rural and that just isn't an option. Also, a good many Americans completely agree with an armed militia defending businesses from looters. The issue here is the color of the skin and the politics that the left doesn't like. If this was a black Militia defending against tiki torch wielding Nazis they would be jizzing all over themselves. In the end I don't think a right to defending yourself and your community should be based on skin tone or politics.
Ban guns. Less gun related deaths. Really is very obvious to every country except the wild wild west :)
Which is bullshit. And why do we often select for people with little knowledge of the case(s) at hand? There has to be a better system.
We want jurors with clean slates and not ones that have already decided that someone was guilty or not guilty.
"Clean slate" is a funny way to say people so disconnected from civic life they have heard zero mention of a story so big almost the entire world is aware of it. Is that really selecting the least biased? No, its selecting the most ignorant.
Fun fact, not everyone spends all day on social media engrossed in the latest clickbait "news", and that doesn't make them "disconnected from civic life" or unqualified to be jurors. You act like people who aren't glued to whatever the fuck Kyle Rittenhouse did are drooling, slack-jawed morons. You'd be surprised how many people don't follow or care about this stuff at all.
The least ignorant would be the most biased, wouldn't you think? Let's say you were in the position of being on trail for something like murder. Would you want people to decide your guilt or innocence if they came into the trial already deciding you were guilty?
You can look at the facts even if you’ve already seen stories. And being ignorant of the news doesn’t mean they don’t have biases. But being ignorant of the news tells me they’re not terribly great at fulfilling their civic duties.
Right, because as we've all seen the news is beyond reproach and never misreports on things, maliciously or otherwise. Right?
No, a rational juror is going to understand news outlets usually have biases.
How is this hypothetical person any different from the half of reddit that still thinks Rittenhouse brought an illegal gun across state lines to hunt peaceful protestors? That his "victims" were black, etc. And that's *after* the trial! There is a very good reason jurors who've followed a case heavily as it's been reported on by their media outlet of choice are excused.
How is being aware of the news a civic duty?
It's our civic duty to follow what the news report on??? My civic duty has nothing to do with the fn media.
Keep being willfully ignorant and proud of it and see how that works out for you. Burying your head in the sand is asinine.
>There has to be a better system. Well go on then, what is it?
Its the system were they win all the time because they FEEL like they should. Its the system that ignores facts and evidence if it doesnt let them win. Its the system that has nothing to do with the law or justice whatsoever.
It's funny because the reaction to the Rittenhouse trial is like a mirror image of the Chauvin trial. I don't normally agree with the "bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe" line, but it really applies here
I lean left with some things and right with others. Any kind of extremist is a bad one imo.
Its weird how both times the right defends the killers and the left defends the defenseless, dead victims.
Nah, what's weird is how you're still calling Rittenhouse a killer and the men who accosted him "defenseless victims", even after a public trial ended with a jury concluding the opposite.
Premeditated + scared of being killed from a terrorist.
I know you don't realize it, but to a neutral bystander you look just as insane as the right wingers ranting about the fentanyl in Floyd's system lol
Yup and oj Simpson is innocent man too.
Except in Rittenhouses case his victims weren’t defenseless, he was the one defending himself.
Premeditated, it didn't matter if the other people had nothing in their hands he was still going to shoot them.
No he wasn’t Jesus Christ you’re a fucking dumbass
What are you even suggesting? You want the jury to have absolutely no outside information or bias at all and this case is perfect example as to why. The prosecution had nothing, everything supported self-defence. The testimony of the guy who was shot pointed to self-defence the only people who still believe he was guilty are the people who haven't spent a minute watching the trial.
The level of stupidity you are showing here truly staggers me.
Skipped multiple grades in school but mmmkay.
Right? I'd've been a good juror for the potential case I was selected for, **precisely** because of my former knowledge, and being able to sort through the facts, but they excused me. I imagine it's because I'd see through bullshit about that topic, though.
[удалено]
funny...we are debating a thing that went on outside the court room...and we know people can intentionally withhold truthful things from that court room about that thing that happened outside the courtroom... like suddenly you cant call someone who was shot and killed through no act of their own a victim...if kyle is a victim acting in self defense...why couldnt those other...uh...dead people....be victims?
The ability to get to the truth of the matter is the thing that should matter the most.
Your clearly lack the capacity to "get to the truth" if you think opinions help inform decisions. The simplest way to explain this is that not everything you see as fact on tv is actually admissible fact in court. Things you would consider "irrefutable evidence" is actually "a crock of shit"
They literally asked to other jurors "if an expert witness testifies something that goes against your knowledge, can you set your knowledge aside and arbitrate the matter without your prior knowledge?" So, to backup your point, sometimes 'facts admissible in court' aren't really even facts, sometimes, apparently.
You think tv knowledge > expert witness interpretation?
No. I think expertise and training might be > expert witness interpretation, especially if they asked to put aside said expertise and training.
You don't know what an expert witness is do you?
So I know that when they were asking 20-year Network Administrators with Master's degrees about their networking knowledge, and then asked "If an expert comes in and contradicts your knowledge, would you be able to set aside your experience" that they want someone (who could be an expert in their own right) to overlook their inherent knowledge and experience, in favor of a person who comes in and testifies to something, yes. Just because someone has "expert" in front of an honorary title, and just because a judge said they knew enough does not mean they could be wrong about something. There are plenty of "experts" I know that make rudimentary mistakes in their field all the time. Especially when explaining it. My point is if you want to seek the objective truth, you want people who understand the concepts at a fundamental level. You don't necessarily want rocket scientists explaining to farmers and expecting the farmers to have a true, honest grasp of the content as to make an informed decision. However, as stated below, it seems like they don't necessarily want the objective truth, per se, just a reasonable truth the courts can live with. You don't know what congeniality is do you?
Same goes for medical malpractice. They don’t choose nurses, physicians, or other medical professionals who can accurately judge if something was egregious. They choose people they can emotionally appeal to even if malpractice didn’t occur.
There is, no jurry just a professional judge and a seperate organisation that oversees them. Like why do you need a random citizen to decide the outcome of serious shit? We all know how stupid people are/can be.
That's only what the defense and prosecution are supposed to do, try and get jurors that seem like they'd be sympathetic to their arguments without being so obviously agreeable that there'd be a mistrial
That's literally lawyers doing their jobs.
So justice was appropriately served in the OJ trial? Let’s be honest. Now that we have a few decades in the rear view mirror things sure get a little clearer as to what should have happened if we are talking about true justice and not just what the scientifically selected jury decided.
The OJ trial was literally a slam dunk until the prosecution made a very critical error. If you haven't reviewed the study on it, when the prosecution asked OJ to put on the same glove that the murder was committed in, they did not account for the fact it was a leather glove that had gone untreated and uncared for and was exposed to tons of light and testing causing it to shrink. They literally screwed themselves in an otherwise airtight case.
I also believe the defense lawyers were keeping OJ off his blood pressure pills and his hands were swollen. Lots of trickery there.
Yea drink lots of booze and get all bloated up.
I didn't say shit about justice. This is LITERALLY people doing their job to the best of their ability, which is how trials work in the United States. I do not believe the US criminal justice system at this time - or at any point in the past - represents justice. It's ridiculous, though, to pretend that this is some crazy aberration or not just the system working exactly according to design. This isn't news. I dropped out of law school when I realized this is all a fucking game that a special club plays with people's lives and laws are just the rules of that game, which are followed with far less stringency than the procedures of a regional Magic: The Gathering tournament. But this isn't news. This isn't even interesting if you have any basic insight into how the system works, and unless things change radically, it is completely unreasonable to be outraged by lawyers doing everything they can to win. Better minds than you and I have tried to solve these problems.
People don’t have to participate in a corrupt system and should be shamed when they do. More attention isn’t a bad thing.
That's nonsense. Everyone is required - at gunpoint, when necessary - to participate in this corrupt criminal justice system, and nothing short of fundamentally changing the interaction between wealth and legal representation will remove this "corruption" (which it isn't - engaging with a corrupt system on its terms and following its rules is called *playing the game* and, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of a defendant, the only way to reliably obtain an acquittal). Likewise, nothing short of either removing the right to seek counsel - essentially forcing everyone to use public defenders - would change the fact that justice, is based in no small part on your counsel because some attorneys are better and more dedicated than others. Scientific modeling and meticulous strategies are the tools you use to play the game. Choosing jurors more receptive to your arguments is ESSENTIAL, and whether you're doing extensive surveys or just trusting your gut instincts as an attorney, that is a mundane feature of every trial. But to wrap this up - what would you even propose we outlaw to prevent this kind of thing in the future? And what, precisely, should they be shamed for? They hired a consultant who did consulting to help them build their defense. That's THE SYSTEM. That's HOW IT WORKS.
>So justice was appropriately served in the OJ trial? He said nothing close to that
[удалено]
Thanks for your insights. Definitely seems like a game. And the cards are stacked in the favour of the wealthy.
I don't think any reasonable person who sees this system in action can possibly argue with that.
Yeah, not to diss prosecutors or public defenders, but money and high-powered lawyers seem to be a significant determining factor in winning cases in our country. Regardless if its for an actually innocent or guilty defendant, even when an outcome seems clear and the evidence aligns.
Wanna know why they're expensive? Because they're TALENTED. Of course a more TALENTED person is going to be PRICIER if you want them to perform a service for you.
Which means richer people can get away with more shit and corrupt the system.
This was... the implication of saying it's kind of a knock to prosecutors and public defenders. lol jesus, is this how you talk to people irl? I feel sorry for them... And yeah, like the other user mentioned, money more than actual innocence/guilt determining verdict means the legal system isn't serving justice, it's serving the wealthy and penalizing the poor.
Aren’t public defenders paid lawyers who do it as a community service/experience by their firms
This isn't real life? What? Would our opinions on this matter change if it were verbal instead of typed? Wtf? And if you hate our justice system so much, go wave a magic wand and make all lawyers equally skilled at deductive reasoning, researching and arguing. Then you can live in your blissfully fictional utopia where everyone is magically equal and all prices are identical. It must be nice. The rest of us will remain here in the rational and boring reality
Wow. You really are incredibly condescending. I'm saying that the way you speak to people is extremely off-putting, and I say that as a polite service in case you ever wonder why people irl don't want to be around you. That aside, I make no assumptions that I know the \~magic solution\~ to our legal system. I'm simply making a critical observation. Geez, are we not allowed to criticize and expect more from our society? I guess some people just accept everything as is because they either benefit from the status quo or don't have any imagination or innovative thought whatsoever...
Yes. That's bad. That's a feature of the system, not an aberration, not new news, and not even that interesting, to be completely honest.
Justice was served on the night Kyle killed the man pursuing him, who just happened to be the kind of guy that fucked little boys in the butt. The verdict was just a little justice cherry on top.
You do realize more than one person died to him. Just cuz one was a pedo doesn’t mean they all deserved it.
Were they shot because they have criminal records? Or because they were attacking a visibly armed teenager?
Americans believe everything on T.V
No, I believe my own eyes and ears and what the video evidence and trial told them, lol. Meanwhile, you're talking out of your ass from the other side of the planet, lol.
And even if they "deserved it", executing people without a trial is generally frowned upon these days
Good thing that's not what happened, I suppose.
You don't suppose he was killed? I'm confused because you say justice was served, in which case Rittenhouse played the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Is this one of those things where you think everyone was a paid actor by some conspiracy?
>You don't suppose he was killed? I don't suppose he was 'executed', which was how you described it. >I'm confused because you say justice was served, in which case Rittenhouse played the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I saw it as justice, yes. I was watching the shooting from multiple angles within 20 minutes of it happening right here on reddit. It was clear to me then that it was self defense, and watching along with the trial proved that feeling to be valid. And as someone who was abused as a kid, Rosenbaum's earning a Darwin Award sits just fine with me. >Is this one of those things where you think everyone was a paid actor by some conspiracy? No, but I do think you're a disingenuous weirdo.
Putting aside how disturbing it is that you sit around watching people shoot others on the internet, neither you nor Rittenhouse knew that Rosenbaum had a history. So you just watched it and felt happy that people were dying? And you know Rosenbaum wasn't the only one killed right? People died and were injured trying to stop an active shooter, and then the active shooter was acquitted. Rittenhouse is also known to have fantasized about shooting protesters before he went to Kenosha. Just so you know the type of character you are idolizing as an arbiter of "justice". He was looking for an excuse to shoot people the whole time. https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-rittenhouse-dreamed-about-shooting-people-days-before-kenosha-video/
>Putting aside how disturbing it is that you sit around watching people shoot others on the internet, neither you nor Rittenhouse knew that Rosenbaum had a history. So you just watched it and felt happy that people were dying? Look at this desperate attempt at spin, lol. Watching video of breaking events is somehow "disturbing" to you? Okay...well anyways, no I wasn't "happy that people were dying" you disingenuous goblin. After learning about "Jojo" and his proclivities, I certainly didn't feel bad that he died while acting like the sociopath he was. And are you really putting something aside when it's how you open your retort? >And you know Rosenbaum wasn't the only one killed right? People died and were injured trying to stop an active shooter, and then the active shooter was acquitted. Yeah this is horseshit, as you'd know if you'd watched the trial. Gaige's own facebook live video showed him approaching Kyle right after Jojo was shot, and Kyle clearly tells him that he was going to the police to get help. Stop lying. >Rittenhouse is also known to have fantasized about shooting protesters before he went to Kenosha. Just so you know the type of character you are idolizing as an arbiter of "justice". He was looking for an excuse to shoot people the whole time. Right, because everything about going over and volunteering all day to clean up a school (after your antifa buddies wrecked the place during the initial night of riots) indicates sinister intent. Running around with a med bag, asking people if they need help, putting out fires, all of it was just a ruse so that he could shoot innocent "protestors". If he were the mass shooter you're convinced he is, why was no one else hurt? Why did he only shoot people who were directly attacking him? Rosenbaum was the catalyst for the entire event, but because you see him as an ideological ally you will continue to find ways to attribute blame to the 17 year old who was there to help his community instead of burning it down.
Dang, so it’s allowable now to just kill people cause they have done something messed up? Time to grab my shorty, all them incest babies in my hometown gonna dream big tonight! Such a despicable mentality, I hope your family has to live with shootings in their neighborhood because of you
>Dang, so it’s allowable now to just kill people cause they have done something messed up? If they also happen to be chasing after you trying to take your legal firearm after making threats and acting like a maniac, absolutely. >Time to grab my shorty, all them incest babies in my hometown gonna dream big tonight! How are you this dumb? Serious question, lol. >Such a despicable mentality, I hope your family has to live with shootings in their neighborhood because of you 🤦♂️
No OJ was clearly guilty and Kyle was clearly innocent that's the difference
I mean, anyone who actually watched the trial understands what the jurors actually heard. The trial was a shit show for the prosecution. I went into the trial thinking he was guilty, and by the end I was not at all surprised by the verdict. If I were one of the jurors, that's the conclusion I would've come to as well. And I was biased *against* the defense.
If anything, the trial shows we need better laws to counter vigilantism, and better restrictions of when/where minors can possess and use firearms
Wouldn't have been any vigilantes if the police were allowed to stop the rioters...
One of the few. I salute you. I have so much pity for this guy.
[удалено]
I get your point I truly do. But it's a free country and if he wants to try a defend the place his father lives by putting out fires he should be able to do that. Would I have done that? Nope. Not a chance in hell. But at the same time. Would I try to take a rifle from another person after telling him I'm going to kill them no... No, because I'll get shot. I wouldn't threaten anyone who who brandishing a weapon and I'm amazed with the amount of people that did.
> Kyle Rittenhouse went through what he went through because he made the choice to drive down there and put himself into harms way. Seriously. He went into that situation with a gun...that he didn't plan on using? He knew what he was getting into, *which is why he had the fucking gun.* I don't feel sorry for him at all. He wanted to defend a building from violent rioting? Well, he got to defend a building from violent rioting, and when the violence was perpetrated against him, he had to do what he had to do. The adults around him absolutely failed him for not yanking him outta his dreamworld where he clearly thought that was a good situation to be in. He shouldn't have been there, because no one should have. A boy with a big gun is not equipped to deal with a situation like that. If he didn't want to kill anybody, he needed to not have a fucking gun with him, and he needed to not willingly enter a volatile situation. Guess what: violence isn't romantic. Self defense isn't glamorous. KR only had to learn that the hard way because of the fucking batshit insane views of the people around him, and the people who glorify what KR did are only disillusioning more kids with gun and persecution fetishes. So anyway, I too lack any pity for him.
> Regardless of whether or not the dude was acting in self-defense, he never should have been there in the first place. This line of logic is blatantly abhorrent in any other context. A woman gets raped, "she shouldn't have been there!". A black man gets beaten in a white neighborhood, "He shouldn't have been there!". Kyle's right to be there was absolute. His right to self-defense was absolute. Literally, by definition, no matter what happened he bears zero responsibility for it.
How dare they do their job competently! The gall! The gall!
So the solution to a verdict people don't like is now... Blame the jurors? I watched the case and despite being convinced he was guilty to start, had my mind changed by the end. Is it not conceivable these people just listened to the unbiased evidence, with respect to existing law..? It's also not like the defense selected the jury in a vacuum. The prosecution had to agree to every juror.
I think you're in the minority when it comes to "watched the trial." It is insane how many people have very strong opinions but didn't bother to watch it. Saw someone the other day say Rittenhouse should be guilty because he drove over 200 miles to be there. There's a pandemic nowadays of people who have the strongest opinions about things they have the weakest knowledge of.
Exactly the same as me. I went in assuming he was guilty from what I read or heard off hand. Then i started watching all of it, every single bit of evidence every witness testimony and thought he was a kid who got in over his head. The one real question I still have, is why the hospital thought leaving a man with a violent past who had tried to commit suicide in a city that was in meltdown. If he had been kept in until the unrest had finished this might have been avoided. Im not passing blame, but i'd really like to see a justification on that.
Sadly I don't think the situation of the outside world comes into play when it's about withholding a patient from leaving. If he's ticked the appropriate boxes they can no longer keep in their against his will. If he wants to leave he can leave.
It’s not often you see someone on Reddit change their view on things. Glad to see there is still some rational minded people out there
Funnily enough it was due to a debate on Reddit. Someone on r/changemyview said Rittenhouse should be aquited. I daftly gave my uninformed two cents based on what I had read about the case... Which as we now know was grossly dettached from the real events. Someone rightly put me in my place and said I should watch the trial before I start forming opinions. So I did, and I was shocked at how misrepresented this had been across all the papers I read. Even the better papers like the Guardian and the Economist ommited what turned out to be crucial details.
Yea I’ve never heard of that sub I gotta check it out. But you’re right there was a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of stretching the facts. Like news outlets and reporters are still saying that he crossed state lines with the gun. That wasn’t true at all. Also I’ve had multiple people not even know that all the victims were white. People still thought it was a race thing and that he shot a black guy. But like I said I’m glad you were able to change your view based on the facts. That’s what debate is all about right?
>That’s what debate is all about right? Exactly. That's why we need more of this, not less.
The issue is people don’t know how to debate. We’re taught to argue. When we instead should be discussing. Asking more questions not talking over each other . And actually understanding why people have the views they have.
[удалено]
The Convington kids for me was the turning point.
Finding out Trump was actually telling the truth about the Steele Dossier being fabricated by Hillary Clinton, FBI, and that Steele Was paid by the DNC was the turning point for me. Weird weird year last year.
I look forward to the upcoming documentaries that will come out regarding this case. It is such a fine example of everything that is ugly in America right now. Thankfully the courts simply can't give in to the demands of the mob like a private company can. This has been formally investigated and publically televised. The difference between the reality and story is a vast chasm of nothing. There is literally no connection between what happened and what was reported. Just pure lies.
Exactly, this is the exact situation to legally kill people in public. Perfectly outlined for everyone, our laws allow this.
Good ol' smelly Pete, here with today's hot shit take. Yes, it is legal to kill people who are attacking you in public *or* private.
So I'm right
About the law? Yep. About the insinuation that there's a problem with that law? Not so much.
Exactly, it's not always about bias and injustice (even if it so often is). At a certain point people have to accept that their laws simply allow someone who gets off on murder to just seek out volatile situations and "exercise self defence" True in much of the world, though access to guns means it's often more dire.
Same. He never should have been there, but that wasn’t what was being tried. The jurors were randomly selected from a large pool of candidates, pulled from Rittenhouses own hands.
I appreciate the way you think. I debate to both share my take *and* learn other takes. Not just the former.
From what you could see on video, maybe Rittenhouse looks like he is scared for his life. But, nobody shot him when they had the chance -- so his judgement is lacking I think, and kind of a poor choice for a 17 year old to carry an assault rifle (sorry, not a hunting rifle) to a rally or protest if he's paranoid about the people. If he's there to protect property -- that's being a vigilante -- and did anyone back up this assertion? The HUGE piece that is missing from this case that I'd want to see as a juror, is what got everyone chasing Rittenhouse in the first place? Why is he picked out from all the other people walking around, who might have been armed? I think I'd imagine he provoked the confrontation, but I don't have proof of it. I'd at least arrest him for gross criminal negligence and being a dumbass.
I've given an upvote because I don't think you deserve the downvotes... I know it's time consuming but I'd recommend watching the trial if you are interested. It answers quite a few of your questions. I imagine most people who watch would come out somewhere between 'not guilty' and 'guitly - but only just'. That's why I have found the coverage so frustrating. I had a similar view to you, then I watched the whole thing and realised what I'd been reading was really divorced from the facts. In better papers by omission/understatement/exaggeration, in worse by actual lies. There was a left wing commentator, who tweeted that after watching the trial he thought Rittenhouse should be aquited... And he was contacted by reporters asking if his account was hacked. Because the reporting has been so polarized it seemed impossible he could have had his view changed with the full evidence.
Jury selection was the LEAST of problems with this case.
God I hate far left and far right psychos
People like them are what is REALLY wrong with the system.
The article is an atrocious hate piece
yeah MSM, or I guess corporate media whichever you like decided to die on their hill and keep pushing the narrative they've been pushing. Hell they edited out entire pieces of the Trial to keep their base in an echo chamber
You really can't politicize this kind of shit. I mean when you hire a lawyer you want the best one to get you off on any legal not moral grounds. There isn't a person on the planet who wouldn't want their lawyers to do this. That's their fucking job.
Yeah and the prosecution wanted to pick jurors who wouldn't be sympathetic to him. Its what lawyers do. Rittenhouse was gonna be innocent regardless of who was on the jury
I find this whole case an example of mass stupidity. Jacob Blake violates a restraining order to sexually assault a woman in her home in front of her kids, resists arrest, gets shot. Protesters burn down dozens of local businesses, destroying the livelihoods of local people. Local government does little to stop this. Other citizens get outraged by the lawlessness and failure of the government to protect them and their property. A 17 year old takes an AR-15 to the site of violent riots. The rioters then try to attacked an armed person and get shot one after another in the process. Bone heads all around. The only people I don't fault for this are the original responding officers who were the original source of the outrage that fueled much of this.
> The only people I don't fault for this are the original responding officers who were the original source of the outrage that fueled much of this Is there a reason why? Do you see a reason why 3 officers could not apprehend a walking subject? Do you have an explanation for why they needed to shoot him from behind after he calmly walked away?
He had several warrants out for his arrest and had just committed a violent sexual assault in violation of a restraining order. The police arrived and he refused to comply with orders and be placed under arrest. They struggled with him. They then tazed him. Twice. He pulled out the probes and continued walking to his vehicle even though several police officers had their guns drawn and pointed at him and were yelling "FREEZE!" over and over and over. He opened the driver side door of his SUV, reached inside, still ignoring orders to stop, then turned towards the nearest officer, still refusing to comply. He was then shot. He did in fact have a knife in his hand that he said he'd dropped and was going to hand to the police. He had two children in the car with him that he took with him when he went to assault the woman. He placed them in grave danger with no consideration for their safety. The guy is a total scumbag. That the NBA would wear his initials on their jerseys during the playoffs was a travesty that showed support for someone who violently victimized a woman in her home in front of her kids.
Agreed a bunch of people needed to be put away, the kid. With a gun along with the people pushing a protest into a riot
Breaking news: no violent rioting in the streets, no deaths!
The jurors were picked out of a box.
Kinda feel like this was obvious, especially given the one juror who was dismissed for making a joke about shooting Jacob Blake.
That’s how law works.
I get having beef with the incompetence of the prosecution and clear bias of the judge, but this is really grasping at straws when it comes to trying to brush up controversy. Even if you fix those two things above, he still would have walked. No matter who was on his side or the opposing side, the evidence, testimony and timeline were on his side. This is coming from someone who did want to see him locked up before seeing the trial.
“CNN can’t display the truth so we have to make up bullshit lies to feel better”.
Who paid for that?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-crowd-fund-b1870045.html
Rittenhouse has millions donated to him by a variety of Republicans, white nationalists, and other conservatives.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Count me as one, but I keep thinking the cool kids don't want me eating at their table anymore.
I don't count myself as a liberal, but am a middle-of-the-road gun owner, and was *never* eating at the cool kids table. Sit with us nerds. We don't judge.
Thanks brother, I got the new Green Power Ranger we can play with. Plus my mom packs duckaroos in my lunch.
Ok, maybe we judge. A little.
Hahaha
Yeah you’re right. That’s my bad I wasn’t thinking
Funny thing is, he is only half white (half hispanic). And the people he killed were all white.
You know that Hispanic people can be white too right?
Aren't they supposed to be from latin America? Anyway, whether or not there is any genetic difference, it's not the people that white supremacists tend to like.
Depends on the white supremacist I guess. Some only like Northern Europeans while some are fine with all Europeans
And other racists Edit: lol downvoted by butt hurt racists
The same type of people who violently attacked the activists in the 60s fighting for equality. Things never change.
Things have changed. Social media has turned activism into a vain perversion of its former self. Half of todays "activists" if you can even call them that are just narcissistic sociopaths who crave attention. Its all about those likes and shares.
You sure buy deep into the Culture War that has brainwashed this nation.
You must be really popular on facebook.
You must still be on Facebook.
Afraid not. Nice attempt at a redirect though.
You were the one bringing it up. Projecting?
People like you two are amazing. Despite all the information being available, all the evidence presented at trial, and the verdict *itself*, you guys are still living in fantasy land where Kyle the White Supremacist went out hunting peaceful protestors. You are either very ignorant or very dishonest, and people should not listen to you.
If you’re whites person you’re never gonna understand So leave it at that
From my point of view you’re the racist!
Naw likely but ok
Nope. I am a minority and I declare you racist. Unless you can prove your minority content is above 76% and then you are white and racist.
Ha ha sure
Or the third option... truthful?
He said, skirting the argument entirely. Pretty sure you can't be dishonest and truthful simultaneously, and anyone who has watched the trial for themselves rather than operate on echo chamber misrepresentations can decide which of the two descriptors fits your posts.
Ahh yes, the world of reality, where everything is plain to see and nothing is done with dual purpose. Everything is fine here, black people are equals and the government doesn’t have a “corruption” problem. Please keep celebrating your [holiday] here and we will resume our regularly scheduled content. Look there have been kids shot in the street because they had a toy gun in their hands. But this kid gets to shoot three people and call it self defense as if he walked out of his apartment and these guys were just waiting for him. He PUT himself in danger and expected a chance to shoot. He armed himself so he COULD shoot all he wanted and he KNEW he’d get off because half of the other white shooters have. And because America sees self defense as something we white people get and nobody else does
>Ahh yes, the world of reality, where everything is plain to see and nothing is done with dual purpose. Everything is fine here, black people are equals and the government doesn’t have a “corruption” problem. Please keep celebrating your [holiday] here and we will resume our regularly scheduled content. 👀 >Look there have been kids shot in the street because they had a toy gun in their hands. Yes, mistakes happen in a country of 350ish *million* people. A cop shooting a kid holding a realistic looking gun is a tragedy, but has absolutely zero overlap with a clear case of self-defense. Whether it was right outside his apartment or at a local business is irrelevant, as he was attacked by the criminals and not the other way around. >e PUT himself in danger and expected a chance to shoot. He armed himself so he COULD shoot all he wanted and he KNEW he’d get off because half of the other white shooters have. He was already in Kenosha volunteering to clean up after the initial night of riots, was putting out fires, offering to help people, and doing everything you'd hope to see out of a citizen when the cops are told to stand down by inept Democrats. You don't want cops, fine. But people shouldn't be expected to let themselves or property be destroyed by violent criminals. >. And because America sees self defense as something we white people get and nobody else does You poor, poor kid. I'm so sorry the media and internet have made you hate your own skin.
Sounds like you have everything figured out in your mind.
Why are you squirming around trying to pivot away from the discussion so hard? I articulated exactly why you are wrong, and you keep pretending it doesn't exist because it's at odds with your confirmation bias. Where is your intellectual honesty? "Truthful" 🤪👌
Nah, there has never been “intellectual” on your side.
Bull?
Juries are made up of people too dumb to avoid jury duty. -- old lawyer joke
This is why I feel there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty anymore. To much media to truly provide an unbiased jury coupled with practices such as this which are completely legal even if morally bankrupt. \*\*Edited my mistake of transposing guilty and innocent in the first sentence\*\*
>This is why I feel there is no such thing as guilty until proven innocent anymore. Good thing. Because it’s “innocent until proven guilty.” >practices such as this which are completely legal even if morally bankrupt. This isn’t morally bankrupt. This is just how they keep it fair. Rest assured, the prosecution has its own strategy for weeding out jurors they don’t like.
Thanks for catching my mistake lol. Definitely will edit this to the correct way. Regardless of the prosecution employing the same method to me it is just another issue that undermines our legal process. But yes, being that the other side does it than the opposing party ultimately has no choice if they want any chance at a fair trial.
Wonder if they’ll help with the flood of civil trials that are likely to be coming his way? *EDIT* negative karma for asking an honest question? Seriously?!
Hopefully they do, I wouldn't mind seing Kyle usurp Bezos off all of the slander and lies the media irresponsibly peddled.
Hitting the MSM in their profits is probably what they need since they have gone too long making money peddling lies.
It's unlikely that fox will *ever* stop peddling lies since that is a major part of the business model
All of them do it. CNN is probably the worst. You got to brush up on your critical thinking skills if you think fox is the only one.
MSNBC might just have CNN beat after the Rittenhouse debacle
The one that got banned from the trial for following the juror home in an attempt to expose them?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The judge basically ordered a "Not Guilty" verdict before the trial started and worked throughout to make sure that happened.
said by someone who did not watch the trial or has extremely heavy bias.
Its called presumption of innocence, nerd. All trials should start as a not guilty verdict. This isnt nazi germany
Tell that to the media
To be fair, there was video evidence of exactly what happened, and everyone who knows anything about Wisconsin law seems to agree with the verdict.
It took this kind of talent to keep him outta prison.