Yeah, people are forgetting that the little shit felt so bad about the killings that he violated his parole by going out and partying with a bunch of white supremacists, including underage drinking.
This wasn’t an accident, this was what he went to Kenosha for.
Aren’t bond and parole two different things? If he violated his bond I’d expect them to revoke it. Instead they filed a motion to keep him from doing stuff they never said he couldn’t do. If I read that article correctly anyways.
I’ll say that if I personally felt that incredibly bad about the killings I would definitely be getting incredibly drunk in a bar with other incredibly drunk people who had made my bail and were singing songs about me. You’d be hard pressed to convince me I was with the wrong crowd.
Offering acceptance where none other exists is exactly how extremists are made and I think taking a hardline against them only enhances their positions. He hung out with the only people that would have him, big fucking surprise. Legal things are legal things, regardless of how little you like them.
So far, from the info in this thread alone it’s obvious that at least one guy made a really bad decision that set off a chain reaction that lead to the deaths of others. At least one of them was Rosenbaum. Harp on curfews and underage drinking after the fact all you want but guns were legal there and a lot of people had them. One guy who didn’t have one, but wanted one, attempted to take one by force. He died, but I have no trouble believing he’d have been painted as a hero at his own trial if he had succeeded.
Wasn’t it Rittenhouse’s responsibility to determine whether those gunshots were actually a threat to him before opening fire on someone who wasn’t even carrying a gun? This is something any competent gun owner should be able to do. You’re saying this kid opened fire because he was scared. But if no one was shooting at him, he had no valid reason to be scared, so he was defending himself against an imaginary threat – he did not have the maturity, judgement, or competence to be carrying a weapon in a potentially dangerous situation.
He went to Kenosha to ‘defend a business’. With a gun he went to great lengths to acquire. Fifteen days prior he’s on video saying he would like to shoot some men who were shoplifting. I don’t understand the idea that he went there for any other reason than an excuse to shoot someone.
[Citation needed]
I don’t think this logically follows. If Kyle is indeed found to be shooting in self defense the first time, it’s not a given that it was self defense the second time. I can totally see how Kyle thought he was under attack and needed to defend himself, but it doesn’t follow that incident two and incident 3 were defensible situations or even the same situation.
The gunshots are only one detail. You leave out the details of being assaulted.
Do you have a cite for that?
And if it turns out to be so I’m sure poverty and lack of education had nothing to do with it just like they don’t today. Plus, as already mentioned, the greater restrictions there were back then on where a law abiding person could be armed. I’m sure that had nothing to do with a higher homicide rate.
You’ve stumbled upon exactly what the jury is there to determine.
The jury is not supposed to decide that looking back from a jury room in November 2021 that he was in no danger. They have to determine if at the moment that this all happened he had a reasonable belief that he was in danger. We know now that some idiot fired a warning shot. The jury has to determine what Rittenhouse knew at the moment and if he acted reasonably with the information he had.
I did not say it was legal because of a specific statute, I used the word “decision”, because that’s what it is–it’s a decision the people of Wisconsin made. FWIW I’m not intrinsically opposed to open carry, but it’s facile to act like gun policy is one of the unique policy areas in all of politics in which there are no negatives at all to a given position. I’ve always said that firearms ownership and carry contribute to more deaths in society, and it’s difficult to really even seriously argue otherwise. I’ve generally been in favor of individual gun rights because I don’t believe that simply because someone is willing to commit a crime with a gun, it means everyone should be denied the right to have a gun. But I do favor a form of licensing and review to discourage casual gun ownership particularly by people unfit for such.
Rittenhouse already was deliberately circumventing the law just in having the gun, so it’s entirely possible he’d have been carrying concealed. But it’s actually possible too he had no desire to egregiously break the law, if Wisconsin was not an open carry state it’s also possible, he decides to stay home.
And while you’re correct that in the 19th century it was concealed carry that was considered more nefarious, there is still a very long (back to the 18th century) history of localities banning the carrying of firearms in town. Before the latter half of the 20th century it was broadly recognized as a matter for local regulation.
We don’t have anything like modern crime statistics pre-20th century, at least not comprehensive. But I’ve seen a lot of scholarship that suggests the murder rate was much higher in the 19th than the 20th, and actually much higher in the 18th century than the 19th. There’s a huge peak in “reported crimes” from late 19th century up through the late 20th century, but a big issue is that prior to about the 1930s crime reporting was incredibly spotty (the FBI Uniform Crime Report began in 1929.) A lot of people who have done more holistic historical analysis have suggested society was actually quite a bit more violent before the 20th century, but there was no real uniform or centralized reporting and tracking of crimes.
Traveling used to be far more dangerous with banditry a serious issue basically in every country in the world, and a traveler murdered on the side of the road might not even occasion any kind of official investigation before modern times, particularly if he wasn’t local. Remember many communities had no permanent law enforcement at all even until very late in the 19th century, and in the 18th century it was even worse. The typical way of investigating murder was the “hue and cry” and the “posse”, in a hue and cry the town just collectively searches around and if they find anyone suspicious the give out a yell (the “cry”), they often just lynched them (probably many times an innocent person.)
It was also far more socially acceptable to kill people back then. Dueling was only lightly prohibited, and occurred at almost epidemic levels in some countries (France had so much dueling it was one of the first Western countries to ban it, but still had extremely high levels of dueling deaths.) Corsican society had the “vendetta” system, in which if someone killed a family member of yours, you were not only allowed but expected on your honor to kill them. And then the person you killed, now their family was obligated to kill you.
Vendettas are believed to have reached their peak in the 18th century, when out of a Corsican population of 100,000 almost 1000 per year were being killed in vendetta slayings–this would be the equivalent of 3.3 million in the United States. How accurate those figures are is hard to say, I think the best hard figures come about 100 years later in the mid-19th century, when the number of vendetta killings was recorded at around ~125/year.
Also interesting point in terms of talk about guns–the vast majority of Corsican vendetta killings were by peasant families where gun ownership was rare, they were often done with crude homemade blades.
And none of this was caused by the open carry of firearms which Babale would appear to have us believe and the point of my challenge to produce a cite.
Wikipedia says US murder rate throughout the 20s was about 8 per 100,000:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1920s
2010s, it’s down to about 4.5 per 100,000.
Exact number varies by year, obviously.
Also, in the modern decades, the US murder rate is staggeringly high compared to other developed nations.
Very interesting testimony this morning. Gaige Grosskreutz is a paramedic with quite extensive training. He had switched fields and is pursuing a college degree in Outdoor Education.
The prosecutor went to great lengths to show him as a person trying to help. But he did acknowledge turning and going after Kyle. He did take his gun from his holster.
His arm wound looked really bad. I’m glad he’s recovered.
Gaige Grosskreutz may be working for the defense, lol.
But this isn’t really a trial for the stated purposes. It’s more a trial to send a message to those who dare be present at the left wing riots for any purpose but to riot.
Why don’t you think it’s a trial about some guy who killed two people? I see no reason to believe that anything would have happened to Rittenhouse if he hadn’t shot people.
The New Christian Martyr crucifies
Jesus and then complains that people are calling him cruel, which is worse than being tortured to death.
Because it’s pretty clearly self defense and he should never have been charged. This is, in part, intimidation by the state to cow people from exercising their rights in the future. What is chosen to be prosecuted and what is chosen to be tolerated or implicitly encouraged by the state is quite often telling as to what those comprise the state wish to occur.
Clearly self defense? I’ll grant you he may get acquitted, but I don’t think it’s clearly self defense.
You object to the charges as merely an attempt to send a message. If the reporting is accurate, I think a message is warranted. Don’t do shit like this:
Wearing a green T-shirt and a backward baseball cap, the armed Rittenhouse walked the streets of the city on the night of August 25 with a group of armed men, video and photos from the protests show. Hours after curfew, Rittenhouse was walking down the streets near a car dealership holding what investigators later determined to be “a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle,” the criminal complaint against him states.
Whether it’s self defense depends primarily on two things the jury will have to decide. One, did Rittenhouse really believe he was in danger of death or grave bodily harm at each of the times that he fired at people, and two, was that belief reasonable under the circumstances. And, note that it matters as well if the jury answers yes to the first and no to the second.
While I agree that it’s probably the case that there is a possible set of circumstances that could allow a jury to answer yes to the second, the jury still has to be convinced that those were the facts, and that he actually believed that. The evidence on the latter will be his testimony, if he testifies (and the jury will decide whether to believe him) his actions, and his words – before, during, and after – if they reflect on his state of mind during the relevant events. There’s plenty for a jury to decide and therefore plenty of reason to bring the case. The jury may well acquit him, but as far as I can tell so far, they don’t have to.