Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

I agree. The defense has made some bizarre arguments.

In my view there was a lot of gray/borderline activity that night by multiple parties. But as one conservative commentator noted in a podcast where he shared his own conflicted feelings, at some point people have to acknowledge that if you go looking for trouble, you will find trouble, and have to be ready for the consequences. I do feel like Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. But I also see the gray and the nuances in the law, don’t feel he went out to commit murder (despite his bluster), and can accept he probably did fear for his life in those moments. And then I go back to the fact that he could have made different choices under which he wouldn’t have been in those moments, and believe that someone more mature with more experience in those situations may not have felt afraid for their lives. Perhaps our laws don’t really suit such situations, because this trial does give a sense of not knowing where it should go, what standard to apply. One word in the charges does feel appropriate to me: “reckless.” It wouldn’t surprise me if the jury lands on a lesser charge focused on “reckless.”

Black people are shot dead in your country for jaywalking so you will have to excuse me if my jaw is dragging on the ground at how much leeway has been provided to little old Kyle Rittenhouse. Again please use your own judgement, If a black teen tried to protect the capitol building on Jan 6 with a loaded weapon he would have been rushed by hundreds of rednecks and then what would have happened if he killed 2-3? I guarantee you the same people bending over backward to defend Kyle would labelling the black teen a terrorist.

In my personal opinion, you get a more accurate answer when a moderate from a political persuasion answers for the political persuasion, instead of someone who lives in another country and posts as if US Democrats are pretty much always misguided.

Most of the rest is not my personal opinion, but an attempt to summarize and generalize what I hear from the Democratic conversations I've participated in and/or listened to.

What Democrats see (not all of which aligns with factual truth, but that isn't your question):
(1) someone who assumed that a protest for a liberal cause would be violent and destructive
(2) who likely believed the threat of violence and destruction was larger than it actually was because conservative media and/or their own biases against the BLM cause told them so
(3) who then went to that protest to help prevent the expected violence and destruction they assumed would happen despite having no experience or training for such situations, and
(4) carried a lethal weapon to do so. Also worth noting:
(5) two people who were there to support the BLM movement are dead.
(5) The AR15 is a particularly loathsome weapon to Democrats as having no useful sporting purpose, and claims to carry one solely for self-defense ring hollow due to the particularly lethal style of bullets normally used with it.
(6) I do not believe most Democrats are aware of what words may have been shouted by whom and, if they are, words fall below lethally discharging a weapon on the "you did a bad thing" scale. People get social consequences for the N word, not criminal ones. This is a criminal case.

I think Democrats who yell "murder" haven't paid a lot of attention the applicable laws, and/or have been swayed by the defendant's connections to far right groups that are considered dangerous. But the idea he could get off when TWO PEOPLE ARE DEAD and he had no business being there in the first place ... well, that doesn't feel like justice, either.

Democrats have trouble with people who kill people. They don't want to kill the killers, two wrongs don't make a right, but do believe consequences are necessary. Take traffic stop deaths. When police officers get off claiming self-defense, how they were afraid in the moment despite eventual proof that the civilian was unarmed, Democrats will point out that the police signed up for the job and created the situation, and shouldn't get to claim "fear their life" so quickly. Similarly, Rittenhouse choose to walk into a situation he should have known would be and feel dangerous to him, yet he choose it anyway, brought a lethal weapon, and now wants to claim the fact that two people are dead is OK because he was afraid for his life. Two people are dead because of his bad choices. That is how Democrats see it.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 19 Nov 2021, 3:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

I don't care about other people (as in comparisons). I am doing my best to look at this case with a cold eye, separate from race or politics. Everything I wrote was preceded with "I," meaning I am speaking for no one but myself. Every defendant, every case, deserves to be decided on it's own merits, period. The fact that justice has not been applied fairly in this country is a disgrace, but responsibility for that does not fall on any single defendant's shoulders. We can't fix the problem by vengefully applying the same inappropriate attitudes and analysis in new directions.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 19 Nov 2021, 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

This argument is much more succinct in the original Russian:

А у вас негров линчуют

No kudos for being imaginative?

I'd be more charitably inclined if he didn't regularly post the same rant down in PPR, with slightly different flavor each time. He needs some new material, this bit is getting stale.

I'd have more respect for that argument if it were made less selectively, as it applies at least as much to everyone shot by Rittenhouse as it does to Rittenhouse himself. I'd be curious how this case would have played in the media and such if everything stayed the same except that Rittenhouse was 25 and there was never any doubt about the legality of his weapon; would people be so quick to argue that it's reckless and foolish to try and protect your community from destructive rioting? When does it become okay?

Purely speculative, but if he was 25 I’d be more inclined to believe he actually held murderous intent.

I consider it far less likely that a 25 year old would have found himself in the exact same positions seeing no other course than firing the weapon.

Police know that controlling destructive rioting is dang near impossible without risking death and injury to innocent parties. It’s why they don’t tend to engage that directly.

Does the argument also apply to the dead? Yes, it does. They also carry responsibility in the situation. But they didn’t shot the weapon and end someone else’s life.

I think the best evidence is the drone video of the Rosenbaum killing.

Rosenbaum is not even in arm's distance of Rittenhouse when the first shot occurs.

Rosenbaum never had a chance to grab the rifle.

It's hard to tell, however, it doesn't even appear Rosenbaum tried to get the rifle.

However, it does appear Rosenbaum might of had his arms extended, and he's running at Rittenhouse.

The video then shows for the next three shots, Rosenbaum is falling several feet away, Rittenhouse lowering his rifle
towards the ground, and executing Rosenbaum.

Of course, I am watching it in slow motion, like the jury requested.

Start Time 2:22:06 watch in slow motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSJb9y6BIao

Has his cellmate been selected yet?

Guilty to Reckless Homicide should probably be the verdict.

Is there a particular type of person you'd like to see selected?

They would both have a jolly time in jail together....