Kyle Rittenhouse a hero? (update - not guilty on all charges)

[crimsonaudio]

I personally think the gun charge should have stuck. Pretty sure the spirit of the law was violated.

Some lazily drafted exceptions are what spared him that charge, and the judge was right to dismiss it.

I was convinced that one would stick until I saw how it was written.

I'll never wish someone convicted by poorly worded law.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Don't worry: They will always give the black 17 year old with an illegal firearm the same presumption of innocence as they did the white nutcase.

The Black Panthers started showing up with long guns back in the day...

Let's see what happens if it gets popular with teenaged minority kids to flock to right wing potential hotspots to protect the public, wagging their guns all the way.

 

[Jon]

The Black Panthers started showing up with long guns back in the day...

Let's see what happens if it gets popular with teenaged minority kids to flock to right wing potential hotspots to protect the public, wagging their guns all the way.

that saw Reagan announcing new gun laws in California

 

[AUDub]

that saw Reagan announcing new gun laws in California

Man imagine if BLM decided to start exercising their right to keep and bear arms en masse. We might finally get some reasonable gun control passed.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I personally think the gun charge should have stuck. Pretty sure the spirit of the law was violated.

Some lazily drafted exceptions are what spared him that charge, and the judge was right to dismiss it.

There was no "spirit" to violate. The statute exempted long guns and then proceeded to define what a "long gun" was. In that kind of case, there's no precedent for trying to change the statute to something we'd prefer it said...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I was convinced that one would stick until I saw how it was written.

I'll never wish someone convicted by poorly worded law.

Had they wanted to, they could have added something to the effect "while in the act of hunting or in the period of time immediately preceding or succeeding such act." That's just one suggestion. There are many ways it could be worded to confine the legal use of the long gun to hunting...

 

[81usaf92]

Really this was the only verdict that you could and should have excepted. It was the right verdict in a very wrong situation.

The wrong person was on trial. Kyle was just the mad dog that was set loose. We should have demanded the one who set him loose and encouraged him to be a vigilante to be on trial… Trump

 

[AUDub]

There was no "spirit" to violate. The statute exempted long guns and then proceeded to define what a "long gun" was. In that kind of case, there's no precedent for trying to change the statute to something we'd prefer it said...

Had they wanted to, they could have added something to the effect "while in the act of hunting or in the period of time immediately preceding or succeeding such act." That's just one suggestion. There are many ways it could be worded to confine the legal use of the long gun to hunting...

I think your second post here pretty much spells out what they were going for and they muddled it up the expections when the law was codified.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Really this was the only verdict that you could and should have excepted. It was the right verdict in a very wrong situation.

The wrong person was on trial. Kyle was just the mad dog that was set loose. We should have demanded the one who set him loose and encouraged him to be a vigilante to be on trial… Trump

Well, to repeat myself, that's not what the criminal law is good for in this country. It's to judge on person in the dock. I won't even try to describe what a slippery slope it is when remote persons are prosecuted for inspiring a crime at a distance...

 

[Jon]

Man imagine if BLM decided to start exercising their right to keep and bear arms en masse. We might finally get some reasonable gun control passed.

I think we'll end up with a shooting war in an American city pretty damn quick if this happens

 

[81usaf92]

Well, to repeat myself, that's not what the criminal law is good for in this country. It's to judge one person in the dock. I won't even try to describe what a slippery slope it is when remote persons are prosecuted for inspiring a crime at a distance...

Its a slippery slope and was/Will never happen. You could argue that his whole presidency was a slippery slope of how weak our institutions and legal system could get under the wrong man.

The point was more to push more blame towards Trump for inspiring vigilantism. But we are now caught up what is legally acceptable as self defense. It was more sarcasm but not enough for me to put blue font on it.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Its a slippery slope and was/Will never happen. You could argue that his whole presidency was a slippery slope of how weak our institutions and legal system could get under the wrong man.

The point was more to push more blame towards Trump for inspiring vigilantism. But we are now caught up what is legally acceptable as self defense. It was more sarcasm but not enough for me to put blue font on it.

Blame on him is fine...

 

[CrimsonTheory]

Of course, Rottenhouse got a way with it.

 

[B1GTide]

The jury got this right but Kyle is as guilty of murder as Ruggs is. We need to work harder to end this type of gun ownership in America. If you feel that you need to own or carry a gun like this in America to feel safe, you are a coward and someone else is likely to pay for your cowardice.

 

[AUDub]

The jury got this right but Kyle is as guilty of murder as Ruggs is. We need to work harder to end this type of gun ownership in America. If you feel that you need to own or carry a gun like this in America to feel safe, you are a coward and someone else is likely to pay for your cowardice.

B1G, I've eaten my share of facepalms from you throughout this thread, but you aren't wrong here.

I also have been around guns my whole life. My dad kept them. I've been handling them for literal decades. I have fun shooting, though given the going rate on ammo lately and Sheepdog, my local indoor range, shutting down I've had to cut back. There are guns in my house, though they stay under lock and key with the ammunition kept in a separate location these days (got kids). I have a concealed carry permit and have for 7 years. I do carry on occasion.

Rittenhouse was acting in self defense in those moments. And he had a legal right to be where he was with that gun

BUT

"it's not literally illegal for me to have done what I was doing" is the final of last resort defenses, especially with guns.

My entire life it has been drilled into my head harder than the Pledge of Allegiance: if I am carrying a gun, I do absolutely everything in my power to avoid conflict. You do everything you can to avoid needing that gun. That means I don't go places where conflict is likely. It sure as hell means I don't go traveling to a place several miles away from home over concerns that somebody's business is getting ransacked by people countlessly outnumbering me.

Rosenbaum was a freaking nut, Huber was a moron and Grosskreutz came out of this looking like a lying sack of crap who was carrying illegally himself, but life is full of those people. I've never had to shoot a single one of them. Sacks of crap through they may have been, if Rittenhouse isn't there with that MP15 then they're probably still alive right now.

So, yeah. Moral culpability.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The jury got this right but Kyle is as guilty of murder as Ruggs is. We need to work harder to end this type of gun ownership in America. If you feel that you need to own or carry a gun like this in America to feel safe, you are a coward and someone else is likely to pay for your cowardice.
[/

Rittenhouse shouldn't have done what he did....carrying a rifle to a riot in which he had no personal stake. It was stupid. And as much as the decedents and the wounded guy did stupid things as well, they would probably be alive and unhurt today if he hadn't.

I am curious, though, about the cowardice label being applied to anyone who feels the need to own one. Is it the look of the rifle that is the problem? It looks mean. It looks like it is, or could be, automatic. But it isn't automatic. And looks aside, I don't see where it actually is any meaner than any other semi-automatic rifle. In fact, at any kind of range, those things tend to be materially less accurate than other weapons.

Google "AR 15 poor accuracy" and what I turned up indicates that a case could be made that, for all their mean looks, they're actually less effective than alternatives.

Or is it the fact that it's semi-automatic? I have two semi-automatic Glocks. They're hand guns, not long guns, but they are just as semi-automatic as the weapon Rittenhouse carried.

Here are two pictures of semi-automatic long guns. The first is a rifle. The second is a shotgun. These pictures are taken straight from an Academy Sports & Outdoors website, so they're both widely available, Both are priced nowhere near $1,000, and so affordable to a significant portion of the population. The rifle is a .22, whereas an AR 15 is a 5.56mm, almost exactly the same caliber. The shotgun is a 12-gauge.




Are people who own these cowards? Are people who own semi-automatic handguns?

 

[81usaf92]

Rittenhouse shouldn't have done what he did....carrying a rifle to a riot in which he had no personal stake. It was stupid. And as much as the decedents and the wounded guy did stupid things as well, they would probably be alive and unhurt today if he hadn't.

I am curious, though, about the cowardice label being applied to anyone who feels the need to own one. Is it the look of the rifle that is the problem? It looks mean. It looks like it is, or could be, automatic. But it isn't automatic. And looks aside, I don't see where it actually is any meaner than any other semi-automatic rifle. In fact, at any kind of range, those things tend to be materially less accurate than other weapons.

Google "AR 15 poor accuracy" and what I turned up indicates that a case could be made that, for all their mean looks, they're actually less effective than alternatives.

Or is it the fact that it's semi-automatic? I have two semi-automatic Glocks. They're hand guns, not long guns, but they are just as semi-automatic as the weapon Rittenhouse carried.

Here are two pictures of semi-automatic long guns. The first is a rifle. The second is a shotgun. These pictures are taken straight from an Academy Sports & Outdoors website, so they're both widely available, Both are priced nowhere near $1,000, and so affordable to a significant portion of the population. The rifle is a .22, whereas an AR 15 is a 5.56mm, almost exactly the same caliber. The shotgun is a 12-gauge.

View attachment 20669

View attachment 20668
Are people who own these cowards? Are people who own semi-automatic handguns?

I've shot their military counterpart (M4) quiet often as I had to be armed with it on a daily basis due to my job. The rifle is hardly a weapon that is what i would personally consider a game changing weapon. Honestly if it didnt have a 30 round magazine. I doubt there would be any leg to actually stand on. Compare a picture of an a SKS and an AR 15 and ask someone "which is the assault rifle" and see what they say.

 

[AlexanderFan]

I personally think the gun charge should have stuck. Pretty sure the spirit of the law was violated.

Some lazily drafted exceptions are what spared him that charge, and the judge was right to dismiss it.

Potentially, but people interpret “spirit” in different ways. Let’s make specific laws and avoid differing interpretations.

 

[AUDub]

Potentially, but people interpret “spirit” in different ways. Let’s make specific laws and avoid differing interpretations.

Hence the Judge was right to dump it. If it ain't in plain language it's crap.

 

[AlexanderFan]

B1G, I've eaten my share of facepalms from you throughout this thread, but you aren't wrong here.

I also have been around guns my whole life. My dad kept them. I've been handling them for literal decades. I have fun shooting, though given the going rate on ammo lately and Sheepdog, my local indoor range, shutting down I've had to cut back. There are guns in my house, though they stay under lock and key with the ammunition kept in a separate location these days (got kids). I have a concealed carry permit and have for 7 years. I do carry on occasion.

Rittenhouse was acting in self defense in those moments. And he had a legal right to be where he was with that gun

BUT

"it's not literally illegal for me to have done what I was doing" is the final of last resort defenses, especially with guns.

My entire life it has been drilled into my head harder than the Pledge of Allegiance: if I am carrying a gun, I do absolutely everything in my power to avoid conflict. You do everything you can to avoid needing that gun. That means I don't go places where conflict is likely. It sure as hell means I don't go traveling to a place several miles away from home over concerns that somebody's business is getting ransacked by people countlessly outnumbering me.

Rosenbaum was a freaking nut, Huber was a moron and Grosskreutz came out of this looking like a lying sack of crap who was carrying illegally himself, but life is full of those people. I've never had to shoot a single one of them. Sacks of crap through they may have been, if Rittenhouse isn't there with that MP15 then they're probably still alive right now.

So, yeah. Moral culpability.

But wherein does the personal responsibility lie in regards to people who actually attacked a 17 year old kid? You’re expecting more maturity and responsibility from a younger child than adults in this instance. If you argue KR shouldn’t have been there, it’s only right to argue that neither should they. Let’s not pretend they were actually protesting.

Totally agree that the jury got it right, but none of them should’ve put themselves in the position they were in.