Current Events > Kyle Rittenhouse do you think he is guilty or not guily?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hes guilty of carrying an illegal fire arm and possibly manslaughter on Rosenbaum. Other two shootings are cut and dry self defence and your mind would have to be completely warped to think otherwise.


---

I thank those sayingnot guilty to get their 2 cents in, those brave enough for their opinion.

im surprised its this mch of a landslide though rn

---

I haven't kept up so if there has been more info released in the last couple of months, forgive me.

But I recall from the initial videos it was very clear that it was all self-defense.

---

I went with guilty if for no other reason than he went there with a huge gun and looking to start trouble, even if some of his actions were theoretically justified I believe he was motivated to kill people because he hated them, and I believe that he could have easily not gone there.

I believe he showed up with murderous intent, and so I don't buy the "whoopsie, I had to defend myself" angle at all.

---

Video evidence suggests self defense.

Probably guilty of having a gun he was too young to have on him, but not guilty of murder. He didn't shoot anyone that wasn't already attacking him.

Esrac posted...

Video evidence suggests self defense.

Probably guilty of having a gun he was too young to have on him, but not guilty of murder. He didn't shoot anyone that wasn't already attacking him.

There's got to be some sort of law against going to a place with a weapon looking for "opportunities for self defense" though.

---

joe40001 posted...

There's got to be some sort of law against going to a place with a weapon looking for "opportunities for self defense" though.

I'd love to hear the argument that makes sense for him to antagonize the rioters for the sole purpose of shooting them, only to run when he gets one to come after him.

---

totalnerdken posted...

Where did he antagonize them?

Ask them, that's the nonsense argument they make.

---

very surprised and woudl like to hear from people saying hes guilty of murder then only discuss about his intention that he brought a gun.

the defense is gonna claim, he obv not only one with a gun

2) even according to left leaning sources, we don't even know if his shot was the one from the earlier

yes people saying guilty arent talking about the video AT ALL what they are talking about is that he had a gun and drove to the riot. nobody ever discusses the other dozens that had guns there or what happened in the video at all.

thats why i am surprised its so one -sided I want ot know peopel who read the article seen multiple videos of JUST VIDEO no commentary, tell me why they think guilty.

Im getting too many people from the not guilty side coming out with 2-4 sentences with their conclusion but nobody oin guilty side is coming up with analysis.

id love to play in the middle but it hard when you guys come out and dont give your analysis and just say Murderer! without reaons why. its sad to think people that type 3 words guilty or not guilty are potentially going ot be able ot be jurors once they reach 18+ or 3-4 years from now

---

shnangyboos posted...

I'd love to hear the argument that makes sense for him to antagonize the rioters for the sole purpose of shooting them, only to run when he gets one to come after him.

Right, he said he was there to protect the businesses and from everything we've seen that's what he was doing. He put out dumpster fires. He offered medical assistance at times to people from both sides. I didn't see him antagonize or escalate situations--from the videos at least.

Honestly, the guy seems like an a-hole from information that has come out about his past and just how he acts in general. And sure, the firearm was illegal for him to have. Still those people that were shot by him were only shot because they attacked him. He ran from all of them and only shot when it was the last viable option he had.

---

It was self-defense and anybody calling him a murderer is either being disingenuous or just not smart at all and I seriously have to question their critical thinking skills and their ability to think objectively. They immediately lose all credibility.

He was attacked by Rosenbaum while minding his own business and putting out a trash can fire. Rosenbaum chased him and caught up to him and grabbed his gun, while some other moron shot his own gun in the air right before.

Rittenhouse is a MAGA piece of shit, and he should not have been there. But that doesn't mean your life is forfeit and you just let people hurt or kill you for it.

People are legit unable to seperate the self defense claim from him being a right winger.


---

the thing that taints it up is that the kid is a fucking ratfuck human. I wouldn't have the balls to be as proud and public faced has he was. maybe i live in a bubble but id be scared to be out and about EVEN IF I KNEW I WAS INTHE 100% RIGHT im still not out and about.

that being said, it disgusts me, again, that many people are saying gulty and are dancing around the actual video. NYT did the piece, we saw the videos and ams, he wasn't doing anything that we saw beforehand that was shooting and murdering beforehand.

it baffles me how many of you just talk about the gun across state linesa nd intention THEN view the vdieo. I would love to be in a deliberation room with 11 people saying hes guilty, but none of which with you guys who cant talk about what happened that night those 7 hours or so. NYT even said they dont believe he murdered anyone prior or maybe didn't shoot his gun prior,.

here is the defense I could make if I need ot be the 12th agaisnt

so how can you convict him, even if hes a fuckhead, a murderer when literally you saw 2 guys run up at him, as he was down. what did he do prior? if the video is telling, he wa atacked with a bag of bricks, he shot (terrible shot) then ran and got chased. even the first incident NYT said it was self defense as well.

how can we classify this as a murder? is it murder? does intention matter if he didnt provoke beforehand? I think its fine saying guilty, maybe correct, but the fact that many of you post without analysis is very chidlike. even if you say not guilty, you need to say something.

the not guilty crowd is putting in their effort whether its good analyssi or not.

Im afraid people don tthink for themselves

---

He traveled there with the intention of killing someone.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

He traveled there with the intention of killing someone.

let say that true.

what did he have to do for that to be shown, would you have stood in front of a building for 3 hours without firing or would you think you or he would have fired sooner than that if intention was there.

I dont get why he wanted to defend random businesses. its too hostile. if your family had a business and riots were happening, you prolly wouldnt defend it either, but if you did what steps woudl you take

---

totalnerdken posted...

Homie, prove it. Show me evidence where you can prove his intent.

I would say his acts beforehand and afterward havent painted him in a good light,

but thats all we can go off of unless you think the video was murder or murderous intent through that 20 sec window

---

ryudo500 posted...

let say that true.

Glad you understand

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Glad you understand

I hope youre never a juror.

---

totalnerdken posted...

So the videos that showed him saying he brought medical equipment and will help anyone who's injured proves that?

Oh, silly me, it must be when Rosenbaum was chasing him for like a minute and touched his gun.

OH WAIT, I'm sorry. You must mean the video of when all those people were lynching him and physically assaulted him.

Or what about that part where he was on the ground, someone ran up to try and hit him, Kyle pointed his gun at a dude, the dude stepped away, then when Kyle DIDN'T shoot and took a moment to get up. Then while Kyle was pre-occupied with getting up, the dude ran again to try and hit him, only for that dude to get shot.

You're right, all of these shows that he was the aggressor. I mean, being down on your knees and having people attacking you, you must be the aggressor in that situation. How silly of me.

Im eagerly awaiting a response to this if anyone has any that doesnt talk about his actions before the night or after.

again i think alot of guilty people are just saying guilty due to his actions before and after that day. not during.

I do wonder if any new evidence comes up of that night, unfortunately with all the info thats out, if we had a go pro stuck to his head that whole night, and he literally does the things you say and he said and the only time he shoots is what happens there, and peoepl still say guilty. just shows how volatile the judicial system can maybe be

---

dolomedes posted...

he's a murderer, end of story

---

ryudo500 posted...

again i think alot of guilty people are just saying guilty due to his actions before and after that day. not during.

They're saying guilty because of the teams sports they play. If he was a rioter in this exact situation they'd make the same arguments the not guilty team makes. They're even incapable of calling the rioters "rioters", as the rioters are part of their team.

---

shnangyboos posted...

They're saying guilty because of the teams sports they play. If he was a rioter in this exact situation they'd make the same arguments the not guilty team makes. They're even incapable of calling the rioters "rioters", as the rioters are part of their team.

Correct

---

shnangyboos posted...

They're saying guilty because of the teams sports they play. If he was a rioter in this exact situation they'd make the same arguments the not guilty team makes. They're even incapable of calling the rioters "rioters", as the rioters are part of their team.

Damn.

---

shnangyboos posted...

They're saying guilty because of the teams sports they play. If he was a rioter in this exact situation they'd make the same arguments the not guilty team makes. They're even incapable of calling the rioters "rioters", as the rioters are part of their team.

Incredibly true

Also, anyone not claiming that its self defense is unironically justifying mob rule, just an FYI for those posters


---

shnangyboos posted...

They're saying guilty because of the teams sports they play. If he was a rioter in this exact situation they'd make the same arguments the not guilty team makes. They're even incapable of calling the rioters "rioters", as the rioters are part of their team.

100% correct. I believe it was a couple of weeks before this, Garrett Foster was carrying around a rifle in Austin. He was part of the protesters. The news even interviewed him earlier in the afternoon and he was very derogatory toward them and basically dared them to try to do anything.

Well, later on that night, a guy in the military driving an uber for some extra cash, took a slow right turn into where the protesters were walking the street. It wasn't one of those times where they were trying to clearly run them over.. it was clearly a mistake and him not knowing the protesters were walking the street from that way. Garrett happened to be there at that very moment and shoved his rifle in the drivers face. The driver was carrying and shot Garrett, killing him, before Garret had the chance to shoot him first.

A lot of people are using ridiculous arguments in that case as well. Uber policy is not to have a gun, so that means he doesn't have the right to defend himself.. etc. etc. Just ridiculous stuff. It's sad that people can't look beyond which side they fall on politically or socially and just look at the facts of the case and make a determination based on that.

---

Samurontai posted...

Incredibly true

Also, anyone not claiming that its self defense is unironically justifying mob rule, just an FYI for those posters

You may be right, however, what if we take account the stuff he did before and after that day? should that or does that bode for anything

---

lol at right wingers pretending they are being objective and not judging this case based on their political leanings. You guys are hilarious.

---

Deja Blue 03 posted...

100% correct. I believe it was a couple of weeks before this, Garrett Foster was carrying around a rifle in Austin. He was part of the protesters. The news even interviewed him earlier in the afternoon and he was very derogatory toward them and basically dared them to try to do anything.

Well, later on that night, a guy in the military driving an uber for some extra cash, took a slow right turn into where the protesters were walking the street. It wasn't one of those times where they were trying to clearly run them over.. it was clearly a mistake and him not knowing the protesters were walking the street from that way. Garrett happened to be there at that very moment and shoved his rifle in the drivers face. The driver was carrying and shot Garrett, killing him, before Garret had the chance to shoot him first.

A lot of people are using ridiculous arguments in that case as well. Uber policy is not to have a gun, so that means he doesn't have the right to defend himself.. etc. etc. Just ridiculous stuff. It's sad that people can't look beyond which side they fall on politically or socially and just look at the facts of the case and make a determination based on that.

thats the point I was trying ot make, doesnt matter whos side, ive heard multipel not guilty but the guilty people arent talking about THAT day and events, they are talking about his actions before and prior to that day., nobody guilty has talked me through the article or video and told me what is happening to indict a guilty verdict.

yet at least

thats what's scary, imagine many of these posters being jurors, I feel they have their mind made up regardless


---

ImmatureContent posted...

lol at right wingers pretending they are being objective and not judging this case based on their political leanings. You guys are hilarious.

ive said my thoughts loosely.
pleas equote some of my posts. not the ones im saying hes considered gulty but ones im saying maybe not guily and break it down for me please @ImmatureContent

---

Guilty the moment he decided to arm himself at a protest

---

ryudo500 posted...

You may be right, however, what if we take account the stuff he did before and after that day? should that or does that bode for anything

The people attempting to harm him had no information on the matter beyond being told that he shot someone, so its irrelevant in this specific case

Imo, it just makes him out to be more of a shithead than I originally thought he was, but I dont think anyone should be subjected to mob rule

---

ImmatureContent posted...

lol at right wingers pretending they are being objective and not judging this case based on their political leanings. You guys are hilarious.

I voted for Bernie in the last election, and supported Biden against Trump (while supporting Warren before him)

I must be a very confused right winger lol

---

Guilty, he traveled across state lines with an illegally obtained gun. The moment he brought the illegally obtained gun, his claim of self defense goes out the window.

He went to a protest with said illegally obtained gun.

---

Mr_Karate_II posted...

Guilty, he traveled across state lines with an illegally obtained gun. The moment he brought the illegally obtained gun, his claim of self defense goes out the window.

He went to a protest with said illegally obtained gun.

No it doesn't. Please don't make up fake laws and shit.

---

Mr_Karate_II posted...

Guilty, he traveled across state lines with an illegally obtained gun. The moment he brought the illegally obtained gun, his claim of self defense goes out the window.

He went to a protest with said illegally obtained gun.

This is incorrect.

---

Learn to spell like an adult, irritant.

DestroyerOfEvil posted...

His crime was literally caught on video.

CRON posted...

He very clearly traveled with a loaded weapon with the intention of firing it.

Intent was to help those in need with first aid, weapon was for self defense in the case of [what actually happened]. They chased him, attacked him, almost killed him, but luckily he had a weapon to defend his life.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

Not guilty. The last two guys really thought they were being heroes, but they were acting on bad information and from Rittenhouse's perspective it was 100% self defense. The first guy who got shot? Rosenbaum, I think. That guy can get fucked. He was only there to start trouble. Spent all day swinging a chain weapon around (because he couldn't legally own a gun due to his sex offender status.) Then got pissed because Rittenhouse wouldn't let him set a dumpster on fire and push it into a police barricade. Rosenbaum then chased Rittenhouse across the street, cornered him, and grabbed Rittenhouse's gun. Unless Rittenhouse was just going to hand over his gun to Rosenbaum, there was no choice but to fire.

This.

---

committing a crime (illegal possession of a firearm) is not justification for assault and battery or attempted murder. same argument for why police brutality against people committing crimes is not ok.

rittenhouse has the right to defend himself if attacked. what he did before is not especially salient when considering the actual incident. same thing when looking at police brutality and arguing that background/past actions justifies assault/attempted murder.

You have to look at the event itself, and determine if rittenhouse had "reasonable" information to suggest that he needed to shoot his attackers to save his own life.

When is his trial and how long is it expected to take?

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Guilty the moment he decided to arm himself at a protest

Of murder?

---

Sure, Kyle's gun was grabbed because he's a fat little fuck who couldn't run. He wasn't really assaulted though. No, a plastic bag of bricks was not thrown at him. A plastic bag would never be able to hold bricks come on now. It had like a water bottle on it or some shit.

Rosenbaum chases him around the car and from the video footage we saw you hear a gun shot and see a muzzle flash. Kyle fired his gun because he was losing a wrestling match, essentially. Is it grounds to respond with lethal force? No. He may not get a murder charge but he's definitely guilty of a man slaughter charge at the very least.


---

Perascamin posted...

Sure, Kyle's gun was grabbed because he's a fat little fuck who couldn't run. He wasn't really assaulted though. No, a plastic bag of bricks was not thrown at him. A plastic bag would never be able to hold bricks come on now. It had like a water bottle on it or some shit.

Rosenbaum chases him around the car and from the video footage we saw you hear a gun shot and see a muzzle flash. Kyle fired his gun because he was losing a wrestling match, essentially. Is it grounds to respond with lethal force? No. He may not get a murder charge but he's definitely guilty of a man slaughter charge at the very least.

This is not what happened.

Rittenhouse was being chased and someone threw a bag, while another person shot a bullet into the air.

At that point, Rosenbaum caught up to Rittenhouse and cornered him and grabbed his gun, and then Rittenhouse shot him.

What does "losing a wrestling match" even mean after being chased by a bunch of people and one of the guys grabbing your gun? Was Rosenbaum gonna give Rittenhouse a lecture on having guns after taking his gun?

Rittenhouse already tried to retreat and at that point, it was either let Rosenbaum do whatever to him, or protect himself and shoot Rosenbaum to make him stop.

---

I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse took a loaded gun across state borders with the intention of using it and then inserted himself into situations to give him the reason to shoot people. That's as good as murder in my mind and he is a terrible person.

I'm not as confident they will be able to make that legal conviction though.

---