Now that it’s with the jury, where do you stand.

[Gidnik 3251]

Feel free to add your reasoning

[hobbes2702 12846]

Fuck him. He’s a piece of shit who went hunting but because our laws are poorly written and frankly, dumb, he will not be found guilty of anything.

Edited November 16, 2021 by hobbes2702

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

is this what we believe should happen or will happen because those are two different answers

[Macanudo 12928]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

is this what we believe should happen or will happen because those are two different answers

Yep.   

What I want:  Guilty on all counts.   

What we'll get:  He'll walk on all counts.

[DDD Dad 14251]

No vote here.  Didn't see enough of the trial to make an informed guess.

Won't be surprised with an acquittal; would be mildly surprised with a conviction, based solely on what I've seen here and in the circle jerk DT thread.

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

How many deaths in the ensuing protests, regardless of outcome? The line is 2. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

How many deaths in the ensuing protests, regardless of outcome? The line is 2. 

over

[hobbes2702 12846]

Way over. We will probably end up with another trial exactly like this one stemming from the protests to this verdict.

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

 

probably walks.

 

hopefully guilty on lesser homicide charges.

 

Shoot for the stars hope: Our gun and self defense laws are changed so that its not ok to walk around with an assault rifle looking for trouble.

 

How should I vote in the poll?

 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by High Plains Drifter

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

3 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

How many deaths in the ensuing protests, regardless of outcome? The line is 2. 

Well, now that we've established it's legal to bring a gun into a hostile area and pick off those that make you "scared".... 

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Way over. We will probably end up with another trial exactly like this one stemming from the protests to this verdict.

 

14 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

How many deaths in the ensuing protests, regardless of outcome? The line is 2. 

 

I'm waiting for any future protests to include (((antifa))) or (((BLM))) protesters to go in armed. Maybe then we can have an epic gun battle (all perfectly legal of course because self defense) where [antifa] vs [Kyle Rittenhouses + Proud Bois + Johnny Sacks] can all kill each other and we all get to get on with our lives.

I just hope that in such a scenario no stray bullets kill anybody who are staying home like they should be.

 

[Gidnik 3251]

I’ve been watching the entire case. The thing that really stood out to me was how absolutely inept the prosecution has been. Questioning the defendant about his choice to silent should have resulted in a mistrial with prejudice. And then  Putting your star witness on the stand and having him say under oath to the defense attorneys that he wasn’t shot until he pointed his gun at the defendant to me really sealed the case where I don’t think he will be convicted of any charge. 

[WillUSAF 226]

I am by no means a lawyer. But from what I took away from the lawyer and judge, and I could be completely missing this, but it sounds to me that under Wisconsin law this kid is in the clear. Also I think putting him on the stand helped out the defense. While I have not watched the whole trial from what I have seen the prosecution did a shitty job. This kid was stupid and should have never been there in the first place. Bring a weapon to something like this with no formal training on how to deal with crowds or even how to properly use your weapon should be a crime IMO. He had Superman syndrome and he fucked around and found out.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by WillUSAF

[lemonlime 5503]

Deeply disturbed by the adulation and attention this misguided kid who killed two people (whether criminally liable or not) is receiving.

[Hank Kingsley 20707]

Not guilty, the kid is still a piece of shit. MAGA will make him a hero. Society continues to crumble. 

 

[Blotto 23434]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

No vote here.  Didn't see enough of the trial to make an informed guess.

Won't be surprised with an acquittal; would be mildly surprised with a conviction, based solely on what I've seen here and in the circle jerk DT thread.

Pretty much where I'm at. From what little I have read, he'll likely get no serious punishment, if any. All of the mouthbreathers who get their dicks hard just talking about guns will rejoice and he'll eventually be elected to Congress. The idiocracy continues. Fuck yeah.

[PW119 167]

Not guilty.  Watch the videos.  And fuck him - he's no hero.

[tantric superman 4667]

It won't go down quite like this:

 

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Fuck him. He’s a piece of shit who went hunting but because our laws are poorly written and frankly, dumb, he will not be found guilty of anything.

Like it or not, this is the gist of CRT.

[Goredho 17349]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

No vote here.  Didn't see enough of the trial to make an informed guess.

Won't be surprised with an acquittal; would be mildly surprised with a conviction, based solely on what I've seen here and in the circle jerk DT thread.

This is me.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Didn't see enough of the trial to make an informed guess.

Way, way above our surly standard.

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

I don’t think he should go to the slammer for the rest of his life but needs some sort of consequences.

 At minimum He probably shouldn’t be allowed to own guns or be a cop or be in military

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

 

He'll have his pick of small town cop/rural county sheriff jobs. The military probably won't touch him though (At least I hope not).

 

 

[Mdhorn 5911]

2 hours ago, WillUSAF said:

I am by no means a lawyer. But from what I took away from the lawyer and judge, and I could be completely missing this, but it sounds to me that under Wisconsin law this kid is in the clear. Also I think putting him on the stand helped out the defense. While I have not watched the whole trial from what I have seen the prosecution did a shitty job. This kid was stupid and should have never been there in the first place. Bring a weapon to something like this with no formal training on how to deal with crowds or even how to properly use your weapon should be a crime IMO. He had Superman syndrome and he fucked around and found out.

 

He fucked around and found out that he could shoot people and get away with it, which will set precedence for others of the same ilk to do the same.  He and Zimmerman both deputized themselves and put themselves at the scene's, purposefully escalating tensions.  I guess that's fine though since there has been no and will be no repercussions.  However, I fully expect the book to be thrown at perpetrators in the same situations but with difference complexions and/or from different sides.  

This kind of logic would've had way different effects on the civil rights marches, rather than just administered beatings, with only the occasional lynching.  Instead of fire hoses and dogs, they could've just shot people.  Fuck these monsters.  

They're not finding out anything and yes, the defense is dumb as fuck.  It still doesn't excuse basic rights--you don't get to point weapons at others no matter where they're at.  And as soon as your gun is drawn, you've violated somebody else's freedoms because they have to think defensively at that point.  Again, fuck these used douchebags who seem fit to violate the rights and well being of others and then cry their snowflake tears for fear of their own well being.         

Edited November 17, 2021 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 5911]

9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

He'll have his pick of small town cop/rural county sheriff jobs. The military probably won't touch him though (At least I hope not).

 

 

Which America?  Trump's America?  They can hold office in Trump's America.  They can get elected in Red States for holding a gun, killing marchers should damn near king this turd. 

[CooterBrown 17913]

He’ll walk but if he gets murdered on the way out of the courthouse, he had it coming.

[Superhero 8775]

Doesn't need to be coming out of the courthouse. Any time in the next 3 months is good enough.

[WillUSAF 226]

2 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Which America?  Trump's America?  They can hold office in Trump's America.  They can get elected in Red States for holding a gun, killing marchers should damn near king this turd. 

If this kid doesn't get the max on murder 1 he will be a martyr to these right wing fuckheads he is a part of. And your right it will set a precedent that anyone can be a fucking vigilante without consequences. 

[Bullneck 18987]

6 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Yep.   

What I want:  Guilty on all counts.   

What we'll get:  He'll walk on all counts.

Probably right. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 hours ago, PW119 said:

Not guilty.  Watch the videos.  And fuck him - he's no hero.

Yeah, the videos largely told the tale.  I kind of assumed there would be some more compelling backstory of his waving his gun around, threatening people, and whatnot that led to the assaultive acts against him.  That did not appear to be the case from the trial testimony and evidence.

[Anastasis 23394]

dipshittery all around.  some of the dipshits fucked around and found out. 

[Anastasis 23394]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the videos largely told the tale. 

I think that the testimony of the dude shot in the arm and the autistic that accused the prosecutors of witness tampering largely told the tale. This proceeding was over after that testimony, at least for any objective observer. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

Yeah lots of stuff going on here. 
he had absolutely no business being there and bringing a gun. What the fuck were the people in charge of him as a minor thinking allowing him to go there and so that?  
the prosecution was hopelessly and completely inept. They blew it in every way imaginable. 
I don’t see how this doesn’t fit self defense and he doesn’t walk. 
I don’t know that this is an equitable result in this situation (a walk for the defendant) but the way the law is written I don’t see a crime. 
maybe I’m just not Texan enough but I can’t understand taking someone’s life over the idea of defending property. You could come and burn my house down and everything in it and if none of my family is in danger there’s no way I’m taking a life. I sure as shit don’t understand taking a gun to interject myself into a situation where I’m protecting someone else’s property. Why would you want that on your conscience for the rest of your life?  

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the testimony of the dude shot in the arm and the autistic that accused the prosecutors of witness tampering largely told the tale. This proceeding was over after that testimony, at least for any objective observer. 

Yeah, from what I gathered, and I did not follow closely, the testimony seemed to indicate that there was nothing more to see than the video.  And that the actual story of what was being said and what happened off-camera, if anything, was even more favorable to ol Kyle.

The judge seemed idiosyncratic, to say the least, and seems to tilt his courtroom in favor of the defendant, which is generally probably a good thing.

The prosecution seemed really dumb and unprepared.  Don't know if they just sucked or had no stomach for what evidently was a pretty shitty prosecution.

I'm enough of a lawyer to strip sentiment and emotion out of a criminal trial, and sufficiently sickened by prosecutorial and judicial abuses and biases against defendants that I am mostly glad to see any defendant walk.  I can't change that because I think Rittenhouse is an extra dipshit.  In the final analysis, though, he's really just a giant, immature dipshit that's been manipulated into this symbol of white supremacy, by those pro and con.  That's pretty sad.  I don't see any need to compound the mess with felony convictions and a long prison sentence.

[Sawbonz 27436]

Obviously I’m not a lawyer but given my understanding of the self defense statute, to me it all comes down to whether there was provocation by rittenhouse of the first dude. If I were on the jury and the prosecution produced an eyewitness who testified or had video that showed rittenhouse menacing the first guy before the guy attacked him (or that showed the guy posed no threat to rittenhouse prior to him shooting) I would vote guilty of the highest charge

 

absent that I wouldn’t be able to say beyond reasonable doubt he wasn’t within his right to defend himself and would vote to acquit. I would not be happy with that choice but I just don’t believe a reasonable response to someone open carrying is to attack them

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah lots of stuff going on here. 
he had absolutely no business being there and bringing a gun. What the fuck were the people in charge of him as a minor thinking allowing him to go there and so that?  
the prosecution was hopelessly and completely inept. They blew it in every way imaginable. 
I don’t see how this doesn’t fit self defense and he doesn’t walk. 
I don’t know that this is an equitable result in this situation (a walk for the defendant) but the way the law is written I don’t see a crime. 
maybe I’m just not Texan enough but I can’t understand taking someone’s life over the idea of defending property. You could come and burn my house down and everything in it and if none of my family is in danger there’s no way I’m taking a life. I sure as shit don’t understand taking a gun to interject myself into a situation where I’m protecting someone else’s property. Why would you want that on your conscience for the rest of your life?  

Yeah, I'm not real down with the idea of anyone, much less a 17 year old, patrolling a protest/riot while armed.  That probably ought to be against the law somehow.

But the defense of property thing is a red herring.  It is ostensibly his justification for being there -- defending others' property -- but none of that matters because it wasn't illegal for him to be there -- the fundamental problem.  When it came down to it, he was defending himself.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Obviously I’m not a lawyer but given my understanding of the self defense statute, to me it all comes down to whether there was provocation by rittenhouse of the first dude. If I were on the jury and the prosecution produced an eyewitness who testified or had video that showed rittenhouse menacing the first guy before the guy attacked him (or that showed the guy posed no threat to rittenhouse prior to him shooting) I would vote guilty of the highest charge

 

absent that I wouldn’t be able to say beyond reasonable doubt he wasn’t within his right to defend himself and would vote to acquit. I would not be happy with that choice but I just don’t believe a reasonable response to someone open carrying is to attack them

Right.

I think that's what people were hoping, that some evidence would develop that he provoked -- other than by his simple armed presence -- the initial and subsequent attacks.  I'm not sure provoking Rosenbaum would have negated self defense for the other two, who pretty clearly came after him hard and armed.

[Anastasis 23394]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, from what I gathered, and I did not follow closely, the testimony seemed to indicate that there was nothing more to see than the video.  And that the actual story of what was being said and what happened off-camera, if anything, was even more favorable to ol Kyle.

I feel like we are simply glossing over the fact that there was testimonial evidence of witness tampering?  Is that a thing that is relevant here? I admit ignorance of the dark arts. 

[Brothahorn 10085]

Not guilty.

Just a dumbass. Which isn't against the law.

The media, fucked this up.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I'm not real down with the idea of anyone, much less a 17 year old, patrolling a protest/riot while armed.  That probably ought to be against the law somehow.

But the defense of property thing is a red herring.  It is ostensibly his justification for being there -- defending others' property -- but none of that matters because it wasn't illegal for him to be there -- the fundamental problem.  When it came down to it, he was defending himself.

Oh I’m aware. I’m not talking about from a legal standpoint I’m talking about from a decision making standpoint of why he chose to make the decision he made to show up. 
is open carry a bad idea?  Probably in most times and most places. Certainly around an angry group of people. Is it incitement in a legal sense in and of itself with no other actions?  How can it  be if it’s within the law?  Is it a stupid law?  Maybe?  Probably?  Is anyone open carrying around a mob of people an idiot?  Definitely. 
the thing that sucks about this is there’s a large segment of the population that will consider him a hero and he will dine out on this for the rest of his life. The reality is he’s a moron, he made a terrible decision, if not for his terrible decision two people wouldn’t have died, and he probably managed this trick while not doing anything illegal. 

[Bevo14 8274]

23 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

Not guilty.

Just a dumbass. Which isn't against the law.

The media, fucked this up.

World would probably be a better place if it were. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Bevo14

[Born to Run 6567]

If this kid doesn't get the max on murder 1 he will be a martyr to these right wing fuckheads he is a part of. And your right it will set a precedent that anyone can be a fucking vigilante without consequences. 

Hes a martyr either way. The only way this sorts itself out is if we put these clowns away consistently with a consistent government. We don't have the latter. He will likely walk, get a medal of freedom and some sort of grift going by 2024

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Justice will not be served

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Justice will not be served

Foremost disinformation propagator chimes in. 

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Not guilty and possibly becomes a millionaire due to the MAGA crowd.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Hello random unprovoked Anastasis attack. 

[Anastasis 23394]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hello random unprovoked Anastasis attack. 

Hello clown. 

[workswithseed 2036]

9 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah lots of stuff going on here. 
he had absolutely no business being there and bringing a gun. What the fuck were the people in charge of him as a minor thinking allowing him to go there and so that?  
the prosecution was hopelessly and completely inept. They blew it in every way imaginable. 
I don’t see how this doesn’t fit self defense and he doesn’t walk. 
I don’t know that this is an equitable result in this situation (a walk for the defendant) but the way the law is written I don’t see a crime. 
maybe I’m just not Texan enough but I can’t understand taking someone’s life over the idea of defending property. You could come and burn my house down and everything in it and if none of my family is in danger there’s no way I’m taking a life. I sure as shit don’t understand taking a gun to interject myself into a situation where I’m protecting someone else’s property. Why would you want that on your conscience for the rest of your life?  

I'll have to say this seems privileged. Insurance don't cover riots, unless homeowners does? Hell the testimony of Rosenbaum's gf said that he couldn't get his pills because the pharmacy was boarded up because of the riots. This wouldn't have happened if property wasn't being destroyed.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

55 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'll have to say this seems privileged. Insurance don't cover riots, unless homeowners does? Hell the testimony of Rosenbaum's gf said that he couldn't get his pills because the pharmacy was boarded up because of the riots. This wouldn't have happened if property wasn't being destroyed.

They probably don’t own the buildings themselves, if they do they should be insured. Along with contents. 
look, I’m not arguing in favor of riots, looting, lawlessness or days of rage. I’m just saying that if it happens I’m not saddling up and bringing my gun bc that’s gonna start problems and probably lead to me ending up dead or killing somebody, and both those options seem way to extreme when compared with rioters burning down property. 
It’s just stuff. It doesn’t need to be protected at the cost of human life and intentionally asserting yourself into a situation like that is a bad bad bad idea, imo. 

[workswithseed 2036]

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

They probably don’t own the buildings themselves, if they do they should be insured. Along with contents. 
look, I’m not arguing in favor of riots, looting, lawlessness or days of rage. I’m just saying that if it happens I’m not saddling up and bringing my gun bc that’s gonna start problems and probably lead to me ending up dead or killing somebody, and both those options seem way to extreme when compared with rioters burning down property. 
It’s just stuff. It doesn’t need to be protected at the cost of human life and intentionally asserting yourself into a situation like that is a bad bad bad idea, imo. 

Definitely not wrong, but people are willing to do so. There's a reason we have roof Koreans as nomenclature. Kinda reminds me of this as well. 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-control-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php

That hurts everyone, and that's just theft. I don't mean to make it as you condone it, I just understand why when no one else is protecting your town, you would feel like you have to.