Do you think kyle rittenhouse will be exonerated?

I think Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense and should be found not guilty of all charges.

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 43 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • Honestly it feels like the act of self defense itself is on trial. Kyle is just the figurehead. The state is bringing out every emotional, every non factor into a self defense case.

    When the question is can you defend yourself when there's overwhelming evidence that your life is in mortal danger.

    Not IF you live in another state does it get revoked. Nor if you have a weapon no one knows has (debatable) legality. Or even what you came to the city to do.

    Its self defense plain and simple. Any other counter argument besides the self defense argument is victim blaming. Sounds exactly like blaming a rape victim for shooting a rapist. "Oh she didnt have to be there in that dress acting that way" its unacceptable then to make mockery of the very real crying about having to kill 2 people out of defense for oneself.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I understand that there is a question of if Kyle provoked the attack he defended himself from. If you provoke an attack you cannot claim self defense.

      According to an article in the Milwaukee Paper this morning the jury will be presented with the question of if Kyle provoked the attack, with the legal ramifications presented. Then its up to the jury. They have seen the video tapes and heard the evidence.

      So, "obvious" self defense is not always so obvious.

      I personally have no idea how this will come out.

      My big question when this went down was what was someone from some miles away from Illinois doing responding to "informal" calls for an "informal" civilian national guard/militia doing in Wisconsin? He is not by any definition part of the civilian militia of Wisconsin; and Kenosha is not a border city.

      I've yet to hear an answer to that question.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Kenosha is where his father and a good chunk of his family lives. He was a "dual citizen" of Wisconsin and Illinois had as much of a right to be in a kenosha as gage (whom might I add lived further than kyle). He had skin in the kenosha protection game too. Buisnesses that get burned down often never return neither will new buisnesses see a need to set up shop in an area that has a habit of being set on fire.

        If he provoked it sure but the overwhelming evidence thus far has shown that kyle tried at every opportunity to run from a conflict. It's not a gun owners duty to ditch your weapon at a drop of a hat. It's your duty to turn yourself in, something that Kyle was trying to do before the second and third shooting.

        You live in wisconsin and so do I. Kenosha is a border town.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • I would say Pleasant Prairie is a border town, also Beloit, La Crosse, Hudson, Iron Mountain, etc.

          The only cases where extra rights are granted to people from other states that I know of involves property owners.

          In my opinion; he lived with his mother in Illinois - and he had no responsibilities or rights to get involved in Wisconsin. As a minor; he cannot even claim to be a member of the general militia.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • As a free United states citizen he has the right to be wherever he wants. You could use the same argument against the rioters and those who got shot. So moot point.

            The case happened in wisconsin thus wisconsin laws. Seems like a fair way to conduct the court system.

            So what if he wasnt apart of a formal militia? His right to keep and bear arms is apart of our natural rights, to protect ourselves from harm.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I also did some reading on dual state citizenship within the USA.

              It's rare and almost always recommended against - as it usually results in a person paying state taxes and fees in both states.

              More common is part year residency/citizenship; most often by people moving.

              However, those only apply for adults and emancipated minors.

              As a minor living with his mother, Kyle is solely a resident/citizen of Illinois.

              That rule is the same in all states of the USA. Minors are a resident/citizen of the state their legal guardian mainly lives in (the state that issues them or their guardian their drivers license) unless they are an emancipated minor whereupon the state that issued the emancipated minor status is their state of residence/citizenship.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • He's a minor. Courts have repeatedly ruled that minors do not have a right to own firearms, except in certain rare exceptions (emancipated minor, etc).

              Federal law prohibits sale or transfer of firearms to minors, except in cases of emancipated minors, etc.

              The laws regarding establishment of the general militia are for able body people over age 18.

              Now if he used firearms that his parents owned to protect the house, property, and people where he lived... no one would argue that. But, he's a long long way from home - and in another state as well.

              I'm aware that his attorney planned to plead that he was a member of the general militia and other things. That explanation is likely to go nowhere (see link below for an analysis of the question).

              https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • One thing you could learn from Kyle Rittenhouse, play stupid games win stupid prizes.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • What he did was stupid, but I do believe it was self defense.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I think his mom was an idiot for dropping a hothead kid with a weapon and no chill at a rally.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • It doesnt matter. I would agree with you he shouldnt have went there. But just because he was there doesnt mean he doesnt have the right to defend himself. Its clear when he shot the last 2 ppl if he hadnt have shot he would be dead.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Unfortunately they're making it political. Its gotten to the point where its like "I support blm and I dont like him so he's guilty" but yeah if it wasnt so political I think most ppl who say hes guilty would actually support his exoneration. Sucks for him that hes caught in thr middle of a serious political divide in the USA.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I think he should be dead along with the people he killed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Voluntary manslaughter

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Going to a place you have no business being with a gun is setting up the situation where you will be attacked, and rightfully so. You don’t let some moron wander around with a gun.

    He responded to a situation that he caused by shooting. Some people seem to miss that glaringly obvious fact.

    He’s a killer with more teeth than brain cells.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • She was wearing a provocative dress at 2 am, by that sleazy bar. She was asking for it. If she didnt want it why did she go out at all.

      See any parallels?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You loaded the question by using that word, assuming he’s innocent, which he’s not. He killed 2 people and wounded a third. That said, he’ll probably be acquitted because of the legal definition of self defense. Bye the way, the judge is a joke and biased.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • They'll probably get him of some lesser charge of illegal possession of the weapon or some shit.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • It doesn't seem like what he did was against the law so he should not be found guilty of murder. I do think he's morally guilty though, and he's a shitty person,he should've stayed home. If he did what he did in another state, like NY for example, he'd be frying. He's no "hero", and I wouldn't want him in my neighborhood, he's a dangerous reactionary. It's pretty obvious he wanted trouble and he's lucky he found it in a place that he won't be legally liable for it. But think about people like this before you defend them beyond the legal aspect, you really, REALLY, do not want to actually live among these types.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • How could you reach that moral conclusion? He done everything he could to protect the community while doing everything he could to not have to resort to using his rifle. He most definitely is a hero, he risked his safety to help a community in need from a mob of rioters because nobody else would.

      He isn't dangerous at all so long as he's not forced to defend himself. At most you could say he's the right kind of "dangerous", like a hero is to dragons.

      I would much rather Kyle as my neighbour who defends his community when the police won't over the people that made him necessary that rioted and burned down the community for days. Infact I would much prefer Kyles in my neighbourhood than I would people that even suggest it's morally inept to do anything beyond let the mob burn down my community.

      By every measure, Kyle is a hero. He's not dangerous for defending himself at the last moment and he's not dangerous for being in opposition to riots.

      The fact people will bring up that "Kyle shouldn't be there" while not saying a word about the rioters is starting to sound like one side of the conversation just feels morally allowed to destroy people and their things.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • He said himself that if he had to do it all over again, he'd just stay home. It was a bad decision, that's obvious. Regardless of the fact he was found not guilty, his life would objectively be better if he hadn't gone there at all. He could've been killed, even. It was stupid to go. The danger is in the poor decision making, not in him defending himself. People who make poor decisions are a danger.

        You're not a hero for defending yourself. You're not a hero for going somewhere you really have no business going and ending up up shit creek and having to defend yourself. Good for him for not getting himself killed, that's fine, but he wouldn't be in jeopardy if he just stayed out of it.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Of course he would say that, his life is essentially ruined unless he sues like Nick Sandmann did and becomes a millionaire from it all and even then his life won't be the same with having to look over his shoulder his entire life paired with the trauma from the event. Regretting something is not the same admitting that something was morally bad.

          This being a bad decision "personally" is what makes it heroic, he put himself in a situation where he could only stand to lose something for the benefit of his community. That is not a "poor decision" and him doing a moral good where people chose to attack him after does not automatically translate to it being "his" poor decision, this is literally victim blaming mentality and we're about two clicks from asking what he was wearing.

          It's entirely his business to defend his community if it's under attack and defenceless. You have no moral right to dictate who is and isn't allowed to be there and I find your analysis morally bankrupt if you can't comprehend that when a community is under attack and the police are not preventing that attack either due to insufficient resources or being told not to intervene, that the community is entitled to protect itself.

          If your response to this is that Kyle and his crew are dangerous because they went out as a show of force against people burning down their community, without consequence, then I don't even know what to say to you, your morals are so out of place that you may aswell be a different species or you're simply partisan.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Why was "his" community defenseless? Who is responsible for that? Do they not have insurance? Honestly, I don't give a shit. Glad the law was applied correctly and I hope Kyle is able to have a life eventually, but I am not optimistic.

            We will just have to agree to disagree on heroism. As for being dangerous, I mean, I have life experience that I draw on to make such judgements and if you see it differently then thats fine, you're free to feel that way and make your own judgements and decisions.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Because the police wouldn't intervene. People don't get to say others must remain defenceless if they have insurance and even if they had insurance your business does not just pop back up the next day brand spanking new with a fresh sticker, some of the businesses burned in these riots won't ever be returning to communities the riots took place which not only costs jobs, it takes away business, it takes away supplies for the community, and it heightens the risk of having a business in the area so people are less likely to set up shop.

              As for the rest, we can agree to disagree.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Hey I live in wisconsin and hes welcome here. We are a swing state, so we are more of a mixed bag. Hell I'd welcome him as a neighbor, got a good aim, protects his community. Far as I'm concerned hes better for wisconsin than he is for Illinois.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I doubt that. He'll be harassed relentlessly and probably end up unemployable. He cost the state millions and made it look bad. I get supporting him legally, that's fine and correct, but realistically, he's fucked and that's sad. He made a poor decision and it will affect him greatly for his whole, potentially very long, life. He may have some immediate success with his current favor with the right, but that will fade, as it always does. He is certainly under threat from people who don't like the verdict. He's in for a rough life, sadly. He said he would do it differently if he could go back, so maybe you can learn something from that as he did.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Hes gonna enjoy the millions from the lawsuits so... that gets over the fact that half the country didnt watch any of the videos.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Well...the lawyers will definitely get paid. Other people are even already using Kyle to make money. I sincerely hope Kyle is able to get something out of this for himself but honestly, he's probably going to have a very rough life. He is being sued as well, whether he wins or not, it will cost him.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment