Rittenhouse walks!

Ziggy said:
Wasn’t he carrying, and used, an illegally obtained firearm?
Click to expand...

Yes he was carrying
Yes he did use
No it was not illegally obtained (It was bought by his friend who I believe lives in Kenosha)

If what i`m reading about the case is correct
 
boroboy6872 said:
Yes he was carrying
Yes he did use
No it was not illegally obtained (It was bought by his friend who I believe lives in Kenosha)

If what i`m reading about the case is correct
Click to expand...

The media made out this narrative that he took a gun across state lines which was just not true.

He did act in self defence, the videos clearly show it, as per the laws there, he was rightly given not guilty.

As to why young people can easily access guns in USA and be running about the streets with them is a bigger issue than this story. But that’s not what he was on trial for. He was on trial for murder but he acted in self defence and rightly walked by their laws.
 
HiredGun123 said:
The media made out this narrative that he took a gun across state lines which was just not true.

He did act in self defence, the videos clearly show it, as per the laws there, he was rightly given not guilty.

As to why young people can easily access guns in USA and be running about the streets with them is a bigger issue than this story. But that’s not what he was on trial for. He was on trial for murder but he acted in self defence and rightly walked by their laws.
Click to expand...
HG - do you know much about the US laws on self-defence? It's just a question, as I'm curious as to how it differs from England and Wales:

Did a person act with reasonable force in the circumstances? That's pretty much the test that would be applied in England and Wales (although a lot more complicated).
 
Squarewheelbike said:
Yeah, but White privilege and all that! What is really scary will be reactions of the gun nutjobs and Trumpanzees!
Click to expand...

Two rival black gangs in Chicago completely walked free from a shootout that involved killings because it was seen as a mutual combat

Instead of making everything about race, I think a big part of it is that it’s a country with some crazy gun laws and what is considered self defence?

Do I think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been found guilty? Well not really if you go by what the law states as self defence where he was on trial. It was the correct verdict based on that.

The bigger question is do I think the justice system and laws need an overhaul to where people can’t be running around shooting people in self defence or having “mutual combat” gun fights and walking free? Absolutely. It’s insane that in 2021 it’s basically perfectly legal.

torontosun.com

No charges in deadly Chicago shootout due to 'mutual combat'

Prosecutors in Illinois rejected murder and aggravated battery charges against five suspects in a gang-related shooting in Chicago.
torontosun.com torontosun.com
 
Nero said:
HG - do you know much about the US laws on self-defence? It's just a question, as I'm curious as to how it differs from England and Wales:

Did a person act with reasonable force in the circumstances? That's pretty much the test that would be applied in England and Wales (although a lot more complicated).
Click to expand...

Well one of them aimed a pistol at him first, which he admitted. It was the guy that got shot in the arm. So Rittenhouse was well within his rights by the law.

I believe Wisconsin has a duty to retreat law that essentially means if you feel the situation is in now your control after being attacked, you can’t shoot. But the videos would suggest the situation wasn’t in his control, he was quite clearly being chased and attacked and had already had s pistol pointed at him by one guy. So that’s really where interpretation comes into play. As it was in Wisconsin, that’s arguably the only reason it had a trial but the prosecution didn’t have much to go on after the video footage and especially when one the guys be shot admitted to pointing a gun at him first.

In 30 states, You can basically shoot to defend yourself if you are under attack from what you would consider grievous bodily harm or anything similar and you don’t have a duty to retreat if you feel you are defending yourself. In plenty of states it would’ve possibly been thrown out of court from the videos alone.

Saw him walking free is not really a surprise, it’s pretty much the correct decision by the law, it’s just that the laws are kind of backwards.

Why a 17-year-old is running around with a gun and shooting people even in self defence is much bigger than this case alone. it’s something that needs to be looked at in the much bigger picture, because it will happen again.
 
Why was he even down there, he is from Illinois , he turned up armed with a semi-automatic rifle, he said he sought to help protect property from unrest????
 
the_holgate_roof said:
he said he sought to help protect property from unrest????
Click to expand...

He seemed to be. There’s was video footage of him talking to people before the shootings and he was there giving first aid to people and protecting property. He certainly didn’t instigate anything which is why the video footage clearly shows it was in self defence.

I don’t know why 17-year-old us running around with a gun and protecting properties and whatnot, but that’s not he was on trial for anyway.

Bizarre country indeed.
 
The Card Cheat said:
Actually he definitely was carrying an illegally obtained weapon. Just because the Judge downgraded this to a misdemeanour doesn’t stop it being illegally obtained. Wait for it........FACT!!!
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

Why Kyle Rittenhouse No Longer Faces a Gun Possession Charge (Published 2021)

The barrel of Mr. Rittenhouse’s rifle was too long, defense lawyers argued, to be in violation of a Wisconsin statute that says minors can’t possess dangerous weapons. His age was also a factor.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top