8 ms·

Because the prosecutors have no case. The photographer witness was damning against them. Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defe

Because the prosecutors have no case. The photographer witness was damning against them. Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense. When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.

kyrra 5y ago
I think everybody knew he would walk on the murder charges before the trial even started. One of the charges against him is a weapons charge that he is most certainly going to be found guilty of.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  You can have a rifle at 17 in his state I believe I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too. @ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
- dreamsicle 5y ago
  You can read the law yourself and make your own conclusion, but even that's pretty unlikely: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. 941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Oh no, I have seen a lot of people on social media who have completely fallen for the misinformation around this case who are completely convinced he is guilty of murder and being found not guilty would be due entirely to white supremacists on the jury or the bench or some other conspiracy theory about the police or prosecutors involved in the case. They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(
MaxLeiter 5y ago
He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Those people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired. @jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL. @croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves. just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters. @happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - MaxLeiter 5y ago
    The man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
    - Grieving 5y ago
      First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it. Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
b9be520d93286 5y ago
lol you are already being downvoted. lets watch this get flagged and/or disappear from the front page in real time...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
elmomle 5y ago
Do you believe Grosskreutz would have been in his right to kill Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse shot him? If not, why not?
- csee 5y ago
  No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      After those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out. Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Assuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly. A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
        hunterb123 5y ago
        Yeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone. You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down. What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though. The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.

kyrra 5y ago

I think everybody knew he would walk on the murder charges before the trial even started. One of the charges against him is a weapons charge that he is most certainly going to be found guilty of.

hunterb123 5y ago
You can have a rifle at 17 in his state I believe I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too. @ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
dreamsicle 5y ago
You can read the law yourself and make your own conclusion, but even that's pretty unlikely: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. 941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Oh no, I have seen a lot of people on social media who have completely fallen for the misinformation around this case who are completely convinced he is guilty of murder and being found not guilty would be due entirely to white supremacists on the jury or the bench or some other conspiracy theory about the police or prosecutors involved in the case. They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(

MaxLeiter 5y ago

He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.

hunterb123 5y ago
Those people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired. @jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL. @croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves. just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters. @happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  [flagged]
- MaxLeiter 5y ago
  The man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
  - Grieving 5y ago
    First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it. Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.

b9be520d93286 5y ago

lol you are already being downvoted. lets watch this get flagged and/or disappear from the front page in real time...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

elmomle 5y ago

Do you believe Grosskreutz would have been in his right to kill Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse shot him? If not, why not?

csee 5y ago
No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    After those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out. Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Assuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly. A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        Yeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone. You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down. What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though. The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.