Kyle Rittenhouse

Poll Poll Kyle Rittenhouse

  • Murdered those men (Guilty)

    Votes: 17 60.7%

  • Defended himself (Not Guilty)

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Total voters
    28
F

Flyingfifer

Senior member
 Fife, Scotland
So today is closing arguments with the Jury being send into deliberations until they reach a verdict.
What do you think, is Rittenhouse a murderer or did he defend himself?
 
Had to google what you were on about, so my argument is based on ten minutes skim reading...........
Travelled a fair distance with a rifle to attend a protest, then claimed self defence for shooting people at a place he had no need to be?
Either bang him up for life or kneecap him and leave him to walk home. :poke:
 
enuff_zed said:
Had to google what you were on about, so my argument is based on ten minutes skim reading...........
Travelled a fair distance with a rifle to attend a protest, then claimed self defence for shooting people at a place he had no need to be?
Either bang him up for life or kneecap him and leave him to walk home. :poke:
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't agree with his intent & assuming it's the truth, he didn't simply turn up with an illegal gun with the intent to start shooting people for no reason :?

A prosecution witness stated that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he got his own gun out :slaphead:
 
mmm-five said:
enuff_zed said:
Had to google what you were on about, so my argument is based on ten minutes skim reading...........
Travelled a fair distance with a rifle to attend a protest, then claimed self defence for shooting people at a place he had no need to be?
Either bang him up for life or kneecap him and leave him to walk home. :poke:
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't agree with his intent & assuming it's the truth, he didn't simply turn up with an illegal gun with the intent to start shooting people for no reason :?

A prosecution witness stated that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he got his own gun out :slaphead:
Click to expand...
He went to a protest at the age of 17, toting an assault rifle! F&&kin' dickhead!
Only shame is he wasn't blasted into a thousand pieces to save the cost of the trial!

(This is me with my liberal head on, btw :rofl: )
 
mmm-five said:
A prosecution witness stated that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he got his own gun out :slaphead:
Click to expand...

So Rittenhouse should be allowed to walk around openly with an assault rifle, but if someone else produces a gun he is within his rights to shoot them? Rather strange logic.
 
Manslaughter..?

Age 17 at the time, still an utter idiot for taking a gun but I doubt you could ever prove he intended to murder that day, he probably didn't, seems to me a stupid lad that thought he looked big and cool with a gun and got it very very wrong so I'd say manslaughter.

America has to take some blame for its gun culture.
 
Scubaregs said:
So Rittenhouse should be allowed to walk around openly with an assault rifle, but if someone else produces a gun he is within his rights to shoot them? Rather strange logic.
Click to expand...

He didn't have and "assault rife" he had a "long gun" or rifle which is a single shot/semi automatic rifle. A rifle he was entitled by law to carry (to bring in John's point about the US laws around guns)
 
Flyingfifer said:
Scubaregs said:
So Rittenhouse should be allowed to walk around openly with an assault rifle, but if someone else produces a gun he is within his rights to shoot them? Rather strange logic.
Click to expand...

He didn't have and "assault rife" he had a "long gun" or rifle which is a single shot/semi automatic rifle. A rifle he was entitled by law to carry (to bring in John's point about the US laws around guns)
Click to expand...
My apologies, all the bits I admittedly skim read said it was an AR-15.
 
enuff_zed said:
My apologies, all the bits I admittedly skim read said it was an AR-15.
Click to expand...

It was an AR-15 but an AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". It does not fire fully automatic (almost no domestically owned guns in the US do except a very small number of extremely highly regulated old (pre 1986) guns).
 
My point was how does he have the right to shoot someone in self defence for producing a weapon when he had one of his own already in his hands.

Whether it was an "assault" rifle or not is immaterial. :roll:
 
Flyingfifer said:
Scubaregs said:
So Rittenhouse should be allowed to walk around openly with an assault rifle, but if someone else produces a gun he is within his rights to shoot them? Rather strange logic.
Click to expand...

He didn't have and "assault rife" he had a "long gun" or rifle which is a single shot/semi automatic rifle. A rifle he was entitled by law to carry (to bring in John's point about the US laws around guns)
Click to expand...

According to WIKI, "Rittenhouse was arrested in Antioch on August 26, 2021.[24] He was extradited to Kenosha and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, two counts of homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment."
 
Scubaregs said:
My point was how does he have the right to shoot someone in self defence for producing a weapon when he had one of his own already in his hands.

Whether it was an "assault" rifle or not is immaterial. :roll:
Click to expand...
Exactly. Semantics anyway. Semi auto just means you have to pull the trigger for each shot. Easily 2 per second. Some would argue they're more dangerous. In the hands of inexperience the fully automatic will climb through recoil and from about the third shot you'll be taking out low flying aircraft. With a semi auto you can pull the trigger again as the barrel comes back down.
All a little irrelevant. The little fat f&&ker should not have been let out with any kind of weapon!
 
Scubaregs said:
My point was how does he have the right to shoot someone in self defence for producing a weapon when he had one of his own already in his hands.

Whether it was an "assault" rifle or not is immaterial. :roll:
Click to expand...

Open carry is legal in parts of the US, in terms of shooting someone else that's the crux of the matter, the defence claim it was in self defence on all 3 occasions. The prosecution claim thats not the case.

The gun charge was dropped by the state during trial.
 
Flyingfifer said:
. A rifle he was entitled by law to carry (to bring in John's point about the US laws around guns)
Click to expand...

You have to be over 18 in Wisconsin to open carry, so at 17 Rittenhouse was not entitled by law to be carrying it.
 
Why don't we stop worrying about it, ignore the fact the yanks like to run around with guns, and let natural selection take it's course. :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom