You have to try it a little better than that, especially on Twitter and Facebook but even here. Try: "l hope next time he shoots at somebody, and there will be a next time, somebody might get off a successful kill shot on him. I would shed no tears"

Can you cite the "USA constitutional law" that says that because it appears to fail to contemplate the right of appeal. By the way, no one is ever found "innocent" although some are found "not guilty" to a legal standard.

@LovinLarge I'll go get a law degree when everyone else on here shows theirs.

@rainmanjr Making factual claims that you can't support with evidence merely proves that you are not a credible source of information.

Yes, he was legally allowed to posses that weapon. A mistaken report said he had to be 18 to have a rifle. No, he had to be 16, 18 was for a "Short-Barreled rifle" which is not what he had. Hence, the judge dismissed that charge.

Had no legal reason to be? He was not in a restricted zone any more than the "Protesters" were. He had as much right to be there as they did. And, he wasn't the only armed person either. Grosskreutz, the guy with the Glock that was shot in the arm, was illegally carrying that weapon (he has a felony record, so he is not allowed to posses a firearm), and pointed it at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse raised and fired his weapon. Grosskreutz even testified to that while on the stand.

At no point did he act in a threatening way. There is plenty of video, none shows him being threatening. In fact, in all cases he attempted to retreat when he had the chance. If all he wanted to do was shoot people, when Rosenbaum (first guy) charged him, he simply would have shot him, instead of running until cornered.

Yes, 2 deaths and one wounded because idiots kept trying to stupidly attack an armed person. The 2 who survived claimed they were trying to keep him from shooting more, but he was fleeing towards the police, and not threatening anyone. Or that they wanted to keep him from getting away. But, he was fleeing TOWARDS the police who were (iirc) less than 1/4 mile in front of him. Once the shooting was done, he proceeded on his previous course, to the police, and turned himself in.

It is not negligent to carry a weapon in a dangerous situation, it is smart. And defending yourself against attack, including one guy who had a gun of his own, is not criminally negligent.

We can do all kinds of hand wringing about if he should have been there in the first place, and if acting as a private security force smacks of vigilantism, but the facts of what happened are pretty clear self defense.

Go back to the Zimmerman/Martin case a few years ago. Zimmerman was being a dumbass chasing after Martin, but that didn't give Martin the right to assault him. And, if Martin did attack first, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

I use that as a hypothetical, because I think Zimmerman was the instigator, took a poke at Martin (as in, Zim swung first) and was simply getting his ass beat, was never in any real danger (except getting his pride hurt) and instead of taking his whoopin' like a man, brought a gun to a fist fight. But, that could not be proven, so Zimmerman got off on self defense.

Well stated, and indeed a terrifying precedent.

@echosam Please produce the evidence that supports your many dubious factual claims.

@LovinLarge Which one are you questioning?

That the judge dismissed the gun charge? There is video of the discussion where the prosecution admitted Rittenhouse was not breaking the law, and the gun was legal.

That Rittenhouse was not violating any law by being there. Stupid, yes, but not illegal.

I can't prove a negative, but there is no video of Rittenhouse being aggressive with the weapon, there is a lot of video of him running away and trying to flee from the mob.

That Rittenhouse was running in the direction of a nearby police baracade when McGinniss (the guy who kicked him in the head), Huber (the guy with the skateboard) and Grosskreutz (the guy with the Glock) attacked him? That was in evidence in the trial.

That Rittenhouse continued to the police and attempted to give himself up when he got there, again, in evidence. These last two the were not in question, even by the prosecution.

That McGinnis, Huber and Grosskreutz initiated the attack and Rittenhouse was on the ground when he fired? Again, plenty of video.

@echosam I'm not questioning any of your dubious factual claims, I'm merely asking you to fulfill the onus upon you to support them with evidence. And to be clear, phrases like "plenty of video" do not constitute evidence.

Anyone can say anything, but without evidence it ought not be afforded any credibility, and it won't be here.

@LovinLarge

First shooting. Prosecution witness confirms Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and was within ~4' of catching him when Rittenhouse fired.

Raw video of 2nd set of shootings. It shows Rittenhouse was being attacked, and only shot at people who attacked him. And, he was indeed running towards police, and attempted to turn himself in.

Grosskreutz testimony admitting Rittenhouse only shot him after he (Grosskreutz) raised his gun at him.

All 3 videos are from media sources not called Fox

I am not questioning Huber or Grosskreutz motives. Both, I believe, honestly thought they were stopping an active mass shooter, and were trying to do the right thing. They did not understand Rittenhouse earlier shooting was self-defense, not him being the aggressor.

But self-defense is in the defendants eyes. Was he under attack, not the aggressor and did he believe he was in danger? Yes, yes, and yes he did. That defines self-defense.

@echosam I'm glad you tune into FoxNews and read the National Review on a regular basis. All Republican pieces of shit and Libertarian assholes will find a way to justify murder, insurrection and the dismantling of democracy and our justice system

@barjoe Don't worry Joe, I don't take anything you have to say seriously anyway. But thanks for responding.

@echosam I know you don't. I take everything you say very seriously.

Exactly.

The weapon was a gift from a relative which is perfectly legal. If his goal was to shoot people, how come he only shot people attacking him? What does crossing an arbitrary state line have to do with anything? He traveled 21 miles, thats like going to the next town over. It's not like he drove across the country.

@Tejas Too bad he wasn't your cell mate. It sounds like you like him.

@Tejas Here ya go.

The trial was a sham. The judge was prejudicial. That does happen and in this case he was for the defense. This case and the OJ case were both won in the jury selection process. Neither jury was going to convict the defendant. The only question was if there would be a unanimous verdict. Like most killers who get off, he will shoot somebody again. Simpson committed armed robbery, George Zimmerman shot somebody again. Joran van der Sloot got away with murdering Natalie Holloway and a couple years later found guilty of murdering a girl in South America. Mark my words, this guy will be charged in the future with a violent crime.

@barjoe To convict one of murder premeditation must be proven. Do you think he planned to kill either of the men who died?

I suggest the main reason he was acquitted of all charges is that the prosecuting attorneys made the worst presentation I ever saw, and I've seen many,

@Alienbeing I do think he planned to kill someone per se. Does he need to have a specific intended victim for it to be premeditated? I don't think so. I agree the prosecution was inept, Judge Schroeder intentionally hampered the prosecution's case. The jury they sat would never have given a unanimous conviction, a better prosecutor could've gotten a hung jury on some of the charges, allowing this killer to be brought to justice at a later time. I still think he will shoot someone again in his lifetime, who maybe gets off a kill shot in return. Then Kyle would get the justice that's coming to him. I would jump for joy.

@barjoe While I am not acquainted with Wisc law, in those States were I do know the law, specific intent is necessary.

I don't think he went there with the intent to kill, but my opinion is no more valid than yours.

@Alienbeing Specific intent to kill without a specific victim in mind does count as first degree. I would assume in every state. He should be rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

@barjoe I guess you aren't inviting him to Thanksgiving Dinner.

@Alienbeing I would have him for Thanksgiving Dinner. Hannibal Lechter style.

@barjoe With Fava beans

@Alienbeing and a fine chianti

Exactly

someone stated on another post of that meme, by that logic anyone who carries a gun anywhere is looking to kill someone. and thats simply not true

Trevor Noah nailed it.

@Tejas I carry when I walk the city on foot but I don't walk around with an AK-47, or an M&P 15 2 like Kyle did. What the fuck! He didn't just carry. He murdered two people in cold blood. If he were black he'd be in shackles right now, he'd prolly been remanded and never given bond in the first place. He's the darling of the right and apparently you feel that way too. I hope he looks over his shoulder for the rest of his life and I hope that's not very long.

@Tejas It’s not the same thing by any means. That’s a gross oversimplification of what happened.

@barjoe your lack of firearm knowledge is probably part of the reason of your obvious bias in this case.

@Tejas I guess you're a munitions expert. Kyle was carrying an M&P 15 2, or a Sport ii. I usually carry Seacamp .380 it's a mini gun that fits in my pocket and the palm of my hand. It gets the job done. I've never had to take my gun out and never brandished it on anybody in 40 plus years. That 17 year old little prick kills two people after transporting a weapon into another states which is illegal. That fucking judge intentionally misinterpreted the law and dismissed the charges because he's fucking pieces of shit Republican judge. All Republicans are pieces of shit. How's that for biased?

@barjoe it's only illegal if it's it's state law. Where I live I can carry to Texas for example and they even recognize my states gun laws over their own

@barjoe most gun violence is against young people. You don't seem to know basic gun lingo and language, you even spelt the name of your gun incorrectly. So I'd say you may own a gun but it's obvious you lack firearm knowledge along with that local gun laws. As a responsible gun own it's your duty to know and understand your local laws. Most people that carry hope they never have to use their gun, but sometimes shit happens

@Tejas Reciprocal. If you travel through a state to get there that isn't reciprocal you'd need to store the firearm. Up North there's States you couldn't even do that. New Jersey is the worst. I don't carry in the car because I often have to go to New Jersey which is 5 minutes from my house in Philly. In the car I don't feel threatened anyway. When I walk in my neighborhood, i carry especially at night. It isn't that safe. I took my gun with me during the rioting summer 2020. There were stores looted a couple blocks from my home. I wasn't looking to shoot anybody. Kyle Rittenhouse was. It's obvious to anybody who's not a Republican, a goober or some Libertarian asshole.

@barjoe you armed yourself when there was looting nearby? I wonder why. If people attacked you would you defend yourself? Probably. In my book you are a hypocrite by your own admission. Go fuck yourself old fart

@Tejas If I travel to NJ my PA carry permit doesn't mean shit. NY State is another one. I don't know what states are reciprocal with PA. I think Florida recognizes our permit and some states don't require a permit. You're right. It's spelled Seecamp. Shit does happen. If i drew my weapon I'd be prepared to shoot someone. Otherwise it stays.

@Tejas But I wasn't attacked. I didn't go to another neighborhood looking for trouble let alone go to another state. Camden NJ is 10 minutes from my house. Would I go across the bridge to shoot to looters? In this case it was protesters who were defending THEMselves against that little fucker.

@barjoe that's why they were chasing him hitting him starting fights and pulled a gun on him your right. How could I be so mislead by my own eyes?

@Tejas Too bad they didn't disarm him. That's all they were trying to do. Stop a killer.

@barjoe yeah three convicted violent felons were going to disarm someone. Do you realize how naive you sound?

@barjoe there is video of the first guy he shot run up to kyle saying "shoot me ni*a like 5 times before anyone was shot. He clearly saw someone with a gun and wanted a confrontation.

@Tejas I don't watch FoxNews edited vids.

@Tejas Again I don't watch FoxNews.

@barjoe CNN and msnbc and tons of other media sources have the videos too. hate to break it to you but CNN edits videos just as often as fox

@Tejas From the time I saw him try to surrender to the cops and they let him go, I knew he was guilty of murder. Nothing will change my mind. About that, I'm totally closed minded. If a black man would've come upon that riot patrol with a semiautomatic rifle on a sling, he'd have been gunned down the the dog that he is.

@barjoe you have more in common with religious people than skeptics. Of that I am sure

@Tejas You do. You're aligning yourself with every miserable Christian Republican piece of shit.

@barjoe you're aligning yourself with the willfully ignorant

I'm going to spend the rest of the day on Twitter trolling and blocking Republican assholes

Not surprised, but forever hopeful. We can't let them take that away from us, too.

You must be one of the very stupid white people I was talking about.

@barjoe did you even follow the case? Anyone with more than two brain cells can tell this is a self defense case and shouldn't have been politicized. You just keep toting the party line and not think for yourself though, I'm sure it'll work out for you

@Tejas He murdered two people. If I were on that jury I'd have nullified that case. The verdict would have been six 11-1 votes and we'd have a mistrial with a future trial and a real judge. You're the one touting the party line and not thinking for yourself. I hope it works out badly for you.

@barjoe so you are saying there is no reason ever to kill someone? That's beyond delusional. Yeah my independent party line tells me what to do you're right lol

@Tejas No. I'm saying HE didn't have a reason to kill anybody. You are the one who's delusional. You've got plenty of company.

@barjoe being attacked by people with weapons isnt a reason for self defense?
edit: people* convicted violent felons

@Tejas He should've stayed in Illinois. He wanted to shoot someone and he did. I think he would kill again. Mark those words. He will shoot somebody again

@Tejas I followed the case and I can tell you that self defence it was not. Most of the rest of the world also thinks that so.

@Jolanta thank you for you input and for representing the rest of the world.

@barjoe maybe the rioters and looters should have stayed home

@Tejas Shoot em all! Genius!

@barjoe Exactly. Kill and face no consequences? That’s a recipe for disaster …

@Tejas You are welcome there. I don't know how much you have travelled around the world or lived in different countries, so yes you are welcome.

@Jolanta I've been to Europe and South America. I find it hard to believe a white woman from Australia speaks for the rest of the world. In some countries you would be killed or sold into slavery just for existing. So by default I think your comment is dismissed. Also coming from a country with such a low population I consider your voice in the world mute.