Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict

[TheLastMan]

DISCLAIMER: Not intending for this thread to turn into a @#?% show but let's see where it takes us.

Mostly curious about how our statue community saw the case result. Poll included and anonymous to encourage honesty.

[MrYac]

clearly at least 7 people never watched the actual trial

[TheLastMan]

Originally Posted by MrYac

clearly at least 7 people never watched the actual trial

Or they heard the news's spin on it, which could be the most damaging to truth. This video is 1-hour long but I encourage anyone interested in the case to listen to the first 30-min or so starting at 2:10 mark. The lawyer goes over the facts chronologically. Makes me curious to watch the case all over again with his panel to gleam their insights.

https://youtu.be/XbyP_w8s0cE

[MrYac]

i don't tend to watch actual trial coverage (at least not full trials) but i've been subscribed to Nick and Viva for awhile now, so when i came across Nick's panel i couldn't help but be glued to my computer for a couple hours every day. having several different lawyers breaking everything down in a play by play made it all so much more interesting then just sitting and watching the court play out in real time on it's own.

[CessnaDriver]

I have owned and operated firearm since the eighties.
I am Federally and state licensed for various firearms purposes and I'm a concealed carry permitted individual in my state which requires background checks and training and that includes self defense laws and how you may need to justify it all to a jury. And those laws apply to all and not just firearms.

I've trained with law enforcement, even a SWAT officer.
I've had to study the laws of self defense with a firearm carefully as someone who carries a firearm responsibly. That is my background.

I knew very soon after the videos were released, that each instance was self defense by the laws and rules I have to live with every time I carry. The first one was the only one I thought might not have been but that assessment faded quickly later.

Again, this is based only on each incident of self defense and ONLY that moment the decision was made to pull the trigger.
My assessment has nothing to do with politics, protests, or anything other than the laws I personally must follow in each three decisions he made.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with these laws, simply they are the law and that is what the jurors are to decide on.

In other words, if he was found guilty, all the things I have had to study before pulling a trigger in self defense would have collapsed, many decades of established laws.

I think the laws are extremely clear and precise because since the stone age... anyone arrested for murder or using force will claim self defense. So the law has become extremely clear.

State to state it can vary in small ways but the basics are well defined a very long time.

By the law, they decided the only way they could is my personal assessment based on my background above.

My personal opinion is... he was not on trial so much as the laws of self defense were. And as a permit holder I DO have skin in the game how this turned out.

[gomur]

Originally Posted by CessnaDriver

I have owned and operated firearm since the eighties.
I am Federally and state licensed for various firearms purposes and I'm a concealed carry permitted individual in my state which requires background checks and training and that includes self defense laws and how you may need to justify it all to a jury. And those laws apply to all and not just firearms.

I've trained with law enforcement, even a SWAT officer.
I've had to study the laws of self defense with a firearm carefully as someone who carries a firearm responsibly. That is my background.

I knew very soon after the videos were released, that each instance was self defense by the laws and rules I have to live with every time I carry. The first one was the only one I thought might not have been but that assessment faded quickly later.

Again, this is based only on each incident of self defense and ONLY that moment the decision was made to pull the trigger.
My assessment has nothing to do with politics, protests, or anything other than the laws I personally must follow in each three decisions he made.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with these laws, simply they are the law and that is what the jurors are to decide on.

In other words, if he was found guilty, all the things I have had to study before pulling a trigger in self defense would have collapsed, many decades of established laws.

I think the laws are extremely clear and precise because since the stone age... anyone arrested for murder or using force will claim self defense. So the law has become extremely clear.

State to state it can vary in small ways but the basics are well defined a very long time.

By the law, they decided the only way they could is my personal assessment based on my background above.

My personal opinion is... he was not on trial so much as the laws of self defense were. And as a permit holder I DO have skin in the game how this turned out.

Thanks for your insight. I'm the total opposite. Just a civilian with basic gun safety training and a respect for the 2nd amendment. For me it was clearly self-defense after watching the unedited videos online over a year ago. It was horrifying to hear the news put their spin and twist facts to play on people's emotions. Even after the verdict, several outlets are doubling down on their misinformation. I truly hope they get taken to court and face severe fines.

[MrYac]

i do wish some of the "got it wrong" folks would chime in and explain their thought process, or at the very least say if they watched the trial or not.

[candyrocket786]

Originally Posted by gomur

Even after the verdict, several outlets are doubling down on their misinformation. I truly hope they get taken to court and face severe fines.

It seems like they are adamant about making the rest of his life hell.

So even though he was cleared, he's still may lose in the end.

Pretty damn unfortunate and just downright criminal..... hopefully he can sue the pants off them.

[Bottled_Water]

Originally Posted by MrYac

i do wish some of the "got it wrong" folks would chime in and explain their thought process, or at the very least say if they watched the trial or not.

Back when it happened I didn't care all that much. Another day, another riot, another shooting, the cycle became a little too exhausting for me to want to look into it. My impression was that a racist white guy went to a BLM protest and opened fire on the crowd. Afterwards I put it out of my mind.

Can't say what compelled me to watch the trial (probably another video that mentioned it), but when I started I couldn't stop. Things weren't adding up. For one, I thought it was black people he shot, and that he fired his gun a dozen times or more. So I did a media search and found a compilation of all the inflammatory (and incorrect) accusations being said. Everything from him belonging to a militia, having ties to white supremacy, being a domestic terrorists, and having fired his gun 60 times. It didn't make sense.

It was the cross examination of Gaige Grosskreutz that really put things into perspective. It was actually fascinating to watch how the defense lawyer was able to box him into admitting the truth: that he was only shot when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. I figured this would be a turning point for the media coverage, but instead they doubled down. This clip from Good Morning America, an interview of Grosskreutz the day after his testimony, was just bizarre.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M&t=127s

Not only is it very clearly edited, but Grosskreutz actually states that he never pointed his gun at Rittenhouse despite having admitted to doing so in court the day prior.

As someone else mentioned, the only thing I was iffy on was the killing of Joseph Rosenblum. An argument could be made that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenblum into chasing him by pointing his gun at him. There was no evidence of this happening but there was also no clear evidence of Rosenblum threatening Rittenhouse either. It was murky.

Closing thoughts. Rittenhouse is not a hero, nor are the people he shot victims. Personally, all individuals involved were idiots. Rittenhouse shouldn't have been trying to protect property that he had no personal ties to, nor should he have left the safety of his group and gone out alone. The people who chased him down and assaulted him also put their lives at risk. Why they would charge a (presumably) dangerous person who was running away from them is a bizarre, but I guess mob mentality. As for News media, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about their role in society.

[MrYac]

Originally Posted by Bottled_Water

Back when it happened I didn't care all that much. Another day, another riot, another shooting, the cycle became a little too exhausting for me to want to look into it. My impression was that a racist white guy went to a BLM protest and opened fire on the crowd. Afterwards I put it out of my mind.

The terrifying part is the majority of the media (including MSNBC who was banned from the courtroom for following the jury bus) are still pushing the white supremacy angle that he drove there simply to shoot black folks. I hope more people like yourself will realize how important it is that these cases actually be broadcast, because the news isn't news any more.

To your other point I would actually say things are a bit flipped for me, while I do fully agree it was self defense I think the case could be made that the other people thought Kyle was a shooter and were trying to "be heroes" but Rosenbaum 100% was the clear aggressor the entire time, all night he was being violent, threatening and specifically said he would kill Kyle on more than 1 occasion. And to see people make this horrible human a hero just goes to show me we are well beyond the point of no return.