Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

Options
1192022242561

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    He was not charged with burglary ,

    His concealed carry permit had lasped this was all brought up ,

    No he had the gun illegally because of burglary convictions ,



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    But we seen the evidence of Rittenhouse attacking a teenage girl ,who was involved in an altercation with another girl , rittenhouse attacked and repeatedly punched the girls from behind .



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    He had been seen by both the defendent and other witnesses, armed with a chain leading up to the shootings. Its very reasonable for Rittenhouse to assume he still has the chain on him



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    that has not been confirmed to be rittenhouse. It could be any boy of similar age and appearance. Your post is the perfect example of how Rittenhouse has the whole MSM, political campaigners against him. CAn you imagine President Higgins announcing to the public that the men charged with attacking Kevin Luney were IRA members before the trial, their would be uproar and a probable mistrial. But its ok for PResident Biden to call Rittenhouse a white supremacist with no evidence



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Several people who were there confirmed it was rittenhouse ,there has also been zero denials it was him ,no its fake news it didn't happen ,just silence and the hope it goes away,

    I reckon going by the court discussions lesser charges and Provocation is going play a big part of the closing to the jury , seems the legals following seems to think the defence messed up by allowing it ,

    Something that didn't gain a lot of notice was the someone was caught photographing and taking video of the jury boarding the bus to the court house



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,801 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken




  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Or he's someone who shot 3 and killed two ,

    But it's all the victims fault .


    He's not a hero he was a wannabe thug with a gun nothing more , attack the victims past but it made no difference on the night ,they were shot and killed ,the treats to kill rittenhouse there is no evidence to show he was threatened by anyone that night



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,801 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


    I think you will find the judge and Jury will disagree with your viewpoint in the end and justice will be served!



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You all, all of you, need to drop CNN and Fox News from your schedule.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Yes a judge and jury

    Not boards or wannabe proud boy or trumpets .



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Although true, no legal analyst I am aware of who has looked at the charge in detail has found a way around the verbiage of the "this section (the one about under 18 with a dangerous weapon") does not apply in the case of a rifle" bit. An instruction which does not reflect this would be highly surprising.

    I suspect the reason that the defense allowed the lesser charges was to allow double jeopardy to enter. One cannot be tried twice for the same offense in the US. By allowing the charges now in a case which has gone pretty well for the defense, it can prohibit a "retrial" on the lesser charges.

    The fear is that a jury may decide "he needs to be found guilty of something", and go with the lesser charge even though, as far as I know, the self defense argument remains every bit as much as defense against any of them.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If it happened here or Britain, obviously he'd have gone down for what it is, a man going out looking to kill black people and killing them. He was committing a crime, all the rest (they ran at him, they happened to be bad people) would be completely irrelevant.

    In the States, with their fondness for the right to bear arms and militia and standing your ground, he might beat it. He possibly even thought claiming he was defending a car dealer was a complete defence in the rust belt!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    A crazed man who was repeatedly shouting the naughty N word, screaming "get him" at a guy who had been attempting to put out fires that the lunatic and his cohorts were starting and was attempting to take the gun off the person who shot him?

    He indeed seems like a victim. In the same sense that Jacob Blake was a "victim".

    (I'm assuming victim now means "violent thugs who deserved what they got)



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    People went for the gun only after he shot and unarmed man ,there is no evidence he threatened rittenhouse none , what's the bad words got to anything ,

    Another thing that was pointed out rittenhouse ran towards him in the video the first victim ,as shown in the videos he's casually walking and in the one video he's shown to start running in the direction ,he ran towards someone who he said was armed and made threats to kill him ...



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Actually can anyone explain the bulletproof vest , rittenhouse said he was issued a bullet proof vest by the police ,

    Do the police randomly issue bulletproof vests to armed people they don't know ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,801 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


    Except that never happened he did NOT go out to kill black people that night! But hey keep making stuff up



  • Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭Burty330


    What you just typed is madness. I can't figure out if you are completely uniformed or completely dishonest. Even to draw reference to these shores is being intentionally dishonest given how different their laws are.

    For example Rittenhouse would have been arrested the moment UK law enforcement saw his gun. On the night he passed by dozens of officers , police lines , police barricades etc. None batted an eyelid at him as he walked through crowded areas with a rifle strapped around his chest. That's the culture out there. Its completely normal. And anybody with an ounce of common sense knows it complete stupidity to try aggressively separate an American from his gun. That's a violation and justifies deadly force as an act of self defence.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I was talking about the evidence that the soot marks on rosenbaums hand were consistent with him attempting to take the rifle off Rittenhouse.

    I also believe that all evidence points towards him running past rosenbaum not at him.

    He was previously given the vest by a different police department as he was part of a police explorer programme which is like a police cadet programme for children up to the age of 18. I don't believe the police in Kenosha gave it to him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    The amount of these people who believe that there's many Americans who want to go out and hunt black people is beyond insane. You'll find similar rhetoric in every thread about police shootings, yet at the same time, there's not one bit of evidence that supports their views. They just repeat and repeat this stuff in the hope that it sells, and sadly some people buy it.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,925 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    He killed a child abuser in self defence . Home run for the defence



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That would be a chargeable offense in itself, but not relevant to the Kenosha shooting. If it were, it would have been introduced as evidence by the State unless they were utterly incompetent



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Yes, a situation he chose, carrying an illegal rifle. He shot three people. If he was Muslim the court of public opinion would have had him a guilty terrorist is a nano second. Full of **** lads.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    What illegal rifle? Under what law? Are people even reading this thread?



  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yet it was 3 white people he shot. Funny that. Are you deliberately lying or just ignorant?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Yes, Rittenhouse has been charged. It costs nothing to charge anyone. Unfortunately, if one reads the cited law under which the charge is made one realizes that the charge is not applicable and does not cover the rifle. It seems that the prosecution is hoping that Judge and jury read only the first part of the section, and don't read the whole section.


    [Edit]

    With regards the straw purchase, the manner in which the rifle was purchased was illegal. That does not make the rifle itself or Rittenhouse's possession of it illegal. The charge placed against rittenhouse is unlawful possession of a weapon, not possession of an unlawful weapon. Both types of law exist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    How come there seems to be a distinct contradiction about under 18s not having dangerous weapons but having a semi automatic rifle at 17 In public area and not related to hunting .

    What's considered a dangerous weapon ,if a semi automatic rifle isn't a deadly weapon .

    Or is it purely the second amendment supercedes that,



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,413 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    There isn't one, except apparently by people who have not read the law for themselves.

    The definition of "dangerous weapon" is in subsection 1 of the charged law. The exceptions to the law are subsection 3. What seems to happen is that people read sections 1 and 2, and don't bother with 3 or looking up the statues referenced in 3.

    The operative question is "why does the exception listed in 3c not apply to Rittenhouse? Please cite statue quotations in your answer"



  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    Must have a pretty poor aim, if he was hoping to kill black people, but missed them and shot a bunch of white guys instead?

    Why do people insist on taking a strong position on something, before they've even made any real effort to inform themselves? (reading a story on your facebook feed is not informing yourself)

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    So there is no far right or white supremacists who want to kill people because of their skin colour , over the last 100 years , from massacres to lynching ,no racist cops ,judges , politicians .



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement