I have been really clear what I think. He should be in jail. Hopefully with an inmate that introduces him to the prison life. Do I think he will? No... much like george zimmerman, he will skate past responsibility for the taking of life. He will enjoy his time in the limelight... right wingers will treat him like a hero, and he will financially benefit from the taking of life. And someone in the future will point to this in their own defense. Meanwhile... more gun deaths. And we will argue whether gun laws are too lax.
it is entirely fine to feel this kid should be in jail, emotionally, morally, whateverally. under the letter of the law, it is highly unlikely that he gets convicted for killing those people. But that doesn’t mean that he and his parents aren’t morally bankrupt and morally culpable for having that kid walk the streets illegally with a gun, without which none of this would have happened. Sorry but the kid is a piece of crap for doing that and yeah, maybe he shot in self defense, but he shouldn’t have been there, he has no business walking around being some self appointed vigilante/“peacemaker”. the kid and his parents are guilty as hell for the situation and the deaths that ensued. No they aren’t solely responsible, but they bear a huge part of the blame. If they believe in Heaven and he’ll, they should not sleep easy for the rest of their lives. for those who want to say, wel the people he whot shouldn’t have “attacked him”, ok under the law and maybe to some extent morally, they bear some fractional share of the blame. But rottenhouse bringing that gun there illegally and patrolling the streets like he is in some ******* video game sheriff is the biggest reason why two people died.
You can see how much of a failure the parents are from him being a high school dropout. And you can't use poverty as an excuse for him. He loved a middle class childhood. He just was just a little **** who's own classmates thought was a little **** also.
None of this has anything to do with being "rioters or looters". Rioting and looting doesn't put Rittenhouse in a position where he feels his life is in danger. Rosenbaum allegedly tried to take his weapon. The others - he was on the ground being attacked , one kicked him , another hit him with the skateboard twice and grabbed his weapon - the last guy , shot in the arm pointed a weapon at him (after putting his hands up). To me , this case boils down to Rosenbaum. We have everything else on camera and I feel it was reasonable to shoot both of those dudes , one you can clearly see grabs his weapon after hitting him twice with a skateboard , the other armed and pointing his weapon at him too. There's no telling what happens if skateboard guy takes his weapon , there's no telling what happens if the guy with the pistol isn't shot either .... It would be quite reasonable to believe that they would either shoot you or stomp you into the ground. What we don't get a clear view of is what happens between Rittenhouse & Rosenbaum when they go between the cars. The only thing we do know is that Rosenbaum chased him .... after that , its anyone's guess what happened off camera.
While the political backing of right wingers is a factor (and repulsive) this also has more to do with (1) he should have never had an assault rifle and (2) he should have never have been acting as a vigilante in a riot area. If you wish to call that political... that's your call.
So, I assume you think the 3 men who caused Arbery's death are in the wrong since they attacked him with their vehicles and played 'stupid games' by claiming to be making a citizen's arrest.
Here's what you are overlooking - Nothing he did gave those people the right to physically attack him and the fact that they did so is undeniable.
When have I backed anything? Don't put words in my mouth. All I've said is that this is self defense (the jury will see it my way too) and that I'm glad that child molester is dead. If someone on this board walked up and put a bullet in the pedo's head I'd buy them a beer. Furthermore, if those idiots weren't burning businesses to the ground, rioting and looting we wouldn't even be having this conversation
I haven't followed that case as closely as this one and haven't seen any video but I'd have to say the odds are that all three are convicted.
I think the Rittenhouse case has a lot more at stake legally than the Aubrey case -Those guys were clearly in the wrong. While Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there = He was. (same goes for the people he shot due to the curfew) While he shouldn't have had the weapon - He did. Nothing he did gave those people the right to attack him - They did. I think some people believe that because he shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have had the weapon , he was suppose to roll over and take whatever that crowd of people did to him - I don't buy into that. My only question in that case revolve around the things we couldn't see - particularly the shooting of Rosenbaum. Did he or did he not attempt to take his weapon.
A thought experiment ... Say you see a 12 year old running around a mall with what looks to be a loaded weapon, would you be in "the right" to try and defuse the situation by taking the weapon from the child? I am not saying that it would be the smart thing thing to do, but if one had loved ones or close friends in the crowd that could be in danger ...
That's a tough question ..... I'd find it hard to answer in a simple yes or no manner , so much of it would depend upon the situation , my (our) proximity , do I-we have an escape route , is he simply carrying it or pointing it at people or otherwise threatening anyone ? Can I do so without getting myself shot ? & I don't find it particularly relevant as while Rittenhouse did have a weapon , he wasn't pointing it at anyone until he was attacked. In that instance , that crowd of people had no authority to attack him. Do you suppose he should have opted for the alternative - allow them to disarm him and accept whatever fate they had in store ?
I'm going to add Kenosha PD is at fault. There is plenty of video of them just waving him through even after he shot those people. Even if you feel Rittenhouse was right why didn't they do more to protect him as he was being assaulted. In a highly volatile situation just waving through a kid open carrying a firearm was negligent. As an LEO your job is to look out for the safety of everyone. By just allowing Rittenhouse free movement, two people are dead, made the situation much harder for them to deal with and also put Rittenhouse own safety at risk. This all could've been avoided if when Rittenhouse showed up instead of just waving him through they told him to go home and let them handle the situation.
No idea. But I can not assume the best or worst case case scenario. Joseph Rosenbaum is not here to tell his side of the story. AFAWK Kyle Rittenhouse was aggressively threatening Rosenbaum with his weapon (worst case scenario). Rittenhouse likely will not tell his side of the story in the court (if his lawyers have a lick of sense). Every time I see a picture of Rittenhouse, I do not see an 18 year old adult. I see a kid.
