Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[horsefly 4,303]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

A young man is chased and attacked by a violent mob whose rioting had caused an estimated $50million worth of damage over the previous 3 night in the town in which he has family and friends.

After volunteering to protect a local business, the mob attack him. He shoots and kills two people, one of which is assaulting him on the floor with a skateboard, and shoots and injures a third who is armed with a handgun.

Murdering scum seems a little harsh when the facts are presented don’t you think?

Idiotic beyond belief. To which authority did he "volunteer his services"? He had no reason to be there, and shouldn't have been carrying an AR-15 rifle at his age. 

So if someone confronts Rittenhouse with an AR-15 in the future and he seeks to defend himself from the threat, you will be perfectly happy if he is shot dead by the person confronting him? Utterly absurd!

Edited November 20, 2021 by horsefly

[Herman 9,780]

A bit saddened to see the support some gun toting killer is getting on here. Shamed to be associated with them.

[horsefly 4,303]

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

it’s a choice for the yanks, it’s their country they should be free to run it as they please.

Then no country, no matter what it's human rights record, can be criticised for its behaviour. I'm sure your views will be greatly appreciated by Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Belarus, the Taliban etc, etc, etc.

[Fen Canary 832]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Idiotic beyond belief. To which authority did he "volunteer his services"? He had no reason to be there, and shouldn't have been carrying an AR-15 rifle at his age. 

So if someone confronts Rittenhouse with an AR-15 in the future and he seeks to defend himself from the threat, you will be perfectly happy if he is shot dead by the person confronting him? Utterly absurd!

True to form, you’re straight in with an insult.

He volunteered his service to the local business he offered to try and help protect from a violent mob, in a town his father and other family members lived. Maybe he thought he was helping the community, maybe he just wanted a scrap with some political opponents, ultimately it’s irrelevant. You can’t say he shouldn’t have been there without saying the same about the mob burning and looting, and to be honest if I was going to try and protect a business in America I’d probably arm myself too.

But the facts of the case are that when confronted by the mob, the first victim lunged at him, the second attacked him with a skateboard and the third pointed a handgun at him.

As for your hypothetical, if you attack somebody holding a rifle that’s pretty stupid on your part, therefore you can’t have too many complaints if you get shot 

[Fen Canary 832]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Then no country, no matter what it's human rights record, can be criticised for its behaviour. I'm sure your views will be greatly appreciated by Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Belarus, the Taliban etc, etc, etc.

There’s a big difference between a country voting to let citizens arm themselves, and autocratic regimes that hang homosexuals and disappear political prisoners. Yours is a false analogy 

[Fen Canary 832]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

A bit saddened to see the support some gun toting killer is getting on here. Shamed to be associated with them.

He’s an 18 year old kid who was attacked by a violent mob. Whilst it wasn’t too bright on his part to get involved, I find it slightly horrifying that people such as yourself condemn him so easily despite the facts being read out in court. Why is no blame being apportioned to those rioting in the first place?

[1902 1,167]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

He’s an 18 year old kid who was attacked by a violent mob. Whilst it wasn’t too bright on his part to get involved, I find it slightly horrifying that people such as yourself condemn him so easily despite the facts being read out in court. Why is no blame being apportioned to those rioting in the first place?

Unfortunately, I suspect that on all sides of the political spectrum, this has become far less about the facts of the case and far more about getting the political result they want. 

My own feelings are that even the judge acted in this way. This wasn't a fair trial, but that doesn't make him guilty. Its a nuanced and confused situation where quite a few people involved did stupid things that resulted in deaths.

That was a tragic result of a police force that has failed to build trust and has abused its position, that then left it in a position where it couldn't actually police. A militia culture which sees individual armed 'defenders' as heros as opposed to liabilities. A large group of individuals who have taken a legitimate political movement and then hung onto it as an excuse for looting and finally a president who sought to inflame the situation for political gain.

It's basically a tale of state and cultural failure resulting in obviously horrible personal consequences for many involved. Trying to apportion blame in this form of situation just turns into stupid whataboutery.

[Fen Canary 832]

2 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Unfortunately, I suspect that on all sides of the political spectrum, this has become far less about the facts of the case and far more about getting the political result they want. 

My own feelings are that even the judge acted in this way. This wasn't a fair trial, but that doesn't make him guilty. Its a nuanced and confused situation where quite a few people involved did stupid things that resulted in deaths.

That was a tragic result of a police force that has failed to build trust and has abused its position, that then left it in a position where it couldn't actually police. A militia culture which sees individual armed 'defenders' as heros as opposed to liabilities. A large group of individuals who have taken a legitimate political movement and then hung onto it as an excuse for looting and finally a president who sought to inflame the situation for political gain.

It's basically a tale of state and cultural failure resulting in obviously horrible personal consequences for many involved. Trying to apportion blame in this form of situation just turns into stupid whataboutery.

I’ll agree with that. We don’t know his reasons for going there, whether in his head he thought he was genuinely helping or whether he was just looking for a bit of trouble we’ll never find out. However I think most but the most one eyed can agree he was confronted by a mob who had been rioting throughout the previous days. The States being the way it is it’s safe to assume that more than a few were armed, so the situation was always likely to escalate, which it did unfortunately with dire consequences.

However the way the case was described in the media was incredibly misleading, it was completely different to what actually played out in court, and I find the attitude of some on here who essentially condemned the kid just because he was on the “opposing” side as quite shameful 

[RobJames 881]

2 hours ago, 7HAR1980 said:

No but he did admit to pointing a hand gun at Rittenhouse while he was on his ****! 

The boy had already shot and killed two unarmed people before that.

[RobJames 881]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

 I find the attitude of some on here who essentially condemned the kid just because he was on the “opposing” side as quite shameful 

For someone who has been posting false information about this boy killing unarmed people I am not surprised. Anyone watching the footage will see him kill two people.

[Fen Canary 832]

2 minutes ago, RobJames said:

The boy had already shot and killed two unarmed people before that.

If you’re confronted by a violent mob in America, and one person lunges at you, the second assaults you with a weapon and the third points a handgun at you, I’d wager you’d be fairly trigger happy too

[Fen Canary 832]

1 minute ago, RobJames said:

For someone who has been posting false information about this boy killing unarmed people I am not surprised. Anyone watching the footage will see him kill two people.

Everything I have said is simply repeating what was said in a court of law

[RobJames 881]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

If you’re confronted by a violent mob in America, and one person lunges at you, the second assaults you with a weapon and the third points a handgun at you, I’d wager you’d be fairly trigger happy too

there was not a mob. At 18.00 the boy fires four times at an unarmed man. Killing him. Follow it through to 19.50 the boy then shoots and kills another unarmed person. Neither were those proportionate responses.  You can hide behind the judges misdirection. But it does not alter the fact that two unarmed people were shot and killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fen Canary 832]

Just now, RobJames said:

there was not a mob. At 18.00 the boy fires four times at an unarmed man. Killing him. Follow it through to 19.50 the boy then shoots and kills another unarmed person. Neither were those proportionate responses.  You can hide behind the judges misdirection. But it does not alter the fact that two unarmed people were shot and killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, after a long trial featuring numerous witnesses, an impartial jury after 3 days deliberations found him to be innocent, so what you or I think is basically irrelevant.

I believe however that if he had been a BLM supporter who had shot a couple of Trump fans, in the exact same scenario you’d be be cheering this verdict

[RobJames 881]

What we think is highly relevant. You have a partisan view of such matters. You likewise think I am of the same mindset. I am not. This lad shot two unarmed people. That is the position any further debate should start from.

[Van wink 2,994]

Would be so good to get an independent view of these proceeding without all the usual and dangerous politicised criticisms of the judiciary. 

[Fen Canary 832]

4 minutes ago, RobJames said:

What we think is highly relevant. You have a partisan view of such matters. You likewise think I am of the same mindset. I am not. This lad shot two unarmed people. That is the position any further debate should start from.

That was the starting position of the whole trial actually, however lots of other evidence came to light after that so it wasn’t where the debate finished.

And to try and portray me as partisan and yourself as neutral is absolute bo**cks quite frankly, you’re essentially Twitter personified 

[RobJames 881]

I think anyone reading the posts would beg to differ. On both counts.

[horsefly 4,303]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

There’s a big difference between a country voting to let citizens arm themselves, and autocratic regimes that hang homosexuals and disappear political prisoners. Yours is a false analogy 

Yet again you seek to distract from what you actually said. Your claim was:

" it’s their country they should be free to run it as they please."

If you had a brain in your head you wouldn't be so foolish as to describe my objection to YOUR claim as an analogy when it was nothing of the sort. It was a straightforward objection to the idea that any country has a simple right "to run it as they please". If you want a recommendation for an introductory book on critical thinking or logical fallacies just let me know.

[Fen Canary 832]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Yet again you seek to distract from what you actually said. Your claim was:

" it’s their country they should be free to run it as they please."

If you had a brain in your head you wouldn't be so foolish as to describe my objection to YOUR claim as an analogy when it was nothing of the sort. It was a straightforward objection to the idea that any country has a simple right "to run it as they please". If you want a recommendation for an introductory book on critical thinking or logical fallacies just let me know.

Do you ever have anything useful to add, or is your life that empty you have to spend you days being pedantic and starting absolutely pointless arguments? Ok I’ll slightly edit my quote, “it’s their country and they should be be free to run it as they please, within reason”

Now, please go annoy somebody else you child 

[horsefly 4,303]

14 minutes ago, RobJames said:

What we think is highly relevant. You have a partisan view of such matters. You likewise think I am of the same mindset. I am not. This lad shot two unarmed people. That is the position any further debate should start from.

Strange isn't it? Those who would no doubt have praised Darryn Frost as a hero for attempting to disarm the knife-wielding terrorist on London bridge, are perfectly happy to praise the murder of "leftie" protesters who attempted to disarm the AR-15 wielding gunman threatening and shooting them in the USA. Utter hypocrisy.

[Van wink 2,994]

Billy used to love polarising a debate

[Fen Canary 832]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Billy used to love polarising a debate

It just kills any debate unfortunately.

There are posters who will actually engage the subject matter, and even if we don’t agree you can have a sensible back and forth. Then there’s the likes of Billy, Horse and now seemingly Rob who just post nonsense and insults until everybody gets bored and stops replying.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

10 hours ago, 1902 said:

He also travelled a long distance, armed with a rifle into a highly volatile situation. Essentially he was always more likely to inflamed the scenario than anything else. However that's what 18 year olds will do, which is why it's ludicrous to allow them to carry a weapon.

I actually agree that the situation was a lot more nuanced than many of these killings in the US, he was acting in self defence up to a point, whether he used reasonable force is for a jury to decide in a fair trial.

Despite that the judge showed clear and obvious bias throughout. He may well be innocent (I personally think under US law, he probably is, however absurd I may find those laws), but that will be questioned for as long as the trial was conducted as it was.

Two points. He was 17 at the time. And under Wisconsin law if the defendant claims self-defence, as was the case here, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defence rather than the defendant having to prove it was.

[RobJames 881]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

 and now seemingly Rob who just post nonsense and insults until everybody gets bored and stops replying.

Name one insult.

[horsefly 4,303]

26 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Would be so good to get an independent view of these proceeding without all the usual and dangerous politicised criticisms of the judiciary. 

Guess you didn't follow the daily reports of the trial then? A judge whose phone played Donald Trump's rally walk-on tune, who refused to let the men killed be referred to as "victims" but allowed them to be called "rioters", etc, etc, etc. I'll let you do the back reading to fill in the other judicial outrages perpetrated by this particular judge if you can be bothered.

[Fen Canary 832]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Strange isn't it? Those who would no doubt have praised Darryn Frost as a hero for attempting to disarm the knife-wielding terrorist on London bridge, are perfectly happy to praise the murder of "leftie" protesters who attempted to disarm the AR-15 wielding gunman threatening and shooting them in the USA. Utter hypocrisy.

There’s a big difference, in that Frost prevented a terrorist from murdering many innocent people. The kid in the states wasn’t going on a rampage attacking innocent people, he was the one being confronted and attacked by a mob. There is no similarity 

[horsefly 4,303]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

It just kills any debate unfortunately.

There are posters who will actually engage the subject matter, and even if we don’t agree you can have a sensible back and forth. Then there’s the likes of Billy, Horse and now seemingly Rob who just post nonsense and insults until everybody gets bored and stops replying.

Try say something informed and worthwhile for a change, instead of spewing your standard right-wing prjudices, then bleating about how unfair it is that they get called out. 

[RobJames 881]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

There’s a big difference, in that Frost prevented a terrorist from murdering many innocent people. The kid in the states wasn’t going on a rampage attacking innocent people, he was the one being confronted and attacked by a mob. There is no similarity 

Incorrect. He was the one doing the confronting. By taking an illegally held weapon.

[Fen Canary 832]

Just now, RobJames said:

Incorrect. He was the one doing the confronting. By taking an illegally held weapon.

So a mob burning businesses and looting isn’t confronting at all no?