https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59352228
Printable View
In Barbados airport at the moment and it’s all over the American news channels. It’s not the last we’ll hear of this.
He was obviously a bit of a tosser and a bit of a narcissistic dreamer. Because no normal person would have turned up there that night.
But when you watch what happened, he was pretty much attacked by a load of people trying to do him serious damage/kill him. It does fit self defence. The 2 people he shot were violent lunatics with histories of violence and molesting kids.
I actually hoped they'd find some weapons charges to put on him. I hate the idea of idiots like him walking around with guns and I hoped he'd get a few years for weapons violations. No sane person could consider it murder instead of defence after looking at the 2 situations he ended up in
I agree, this has the potential to get very nasty.
Seems the judge had a novel way of going about his business as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nosha-shooting
I wonder what would be the outcome if he was black surrounded by white men. With the same defence.:shrug:
I can't see a murder charge sticking or being deserved. I full agree that 17yr olds shouldn't be wandering around with guns. Also seems pretty conclusive that the level of threat he was under could reasonably be considered life threatening
Quite a good write up by CNN's crime reporter.
Laura Coates, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, said she was not surprised*the jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse*on all charges because of the jury instructions and the execution of the prosecution's argument.
The prosecutors were trying to make a case about an active shooter, arguing that everyone else who responded to Rittenhouse's actions that night were actually the one's acting in self-defense. Coates said, in the end, it wasn't compelling.
"That proved unpersuasive it seems to this*particular jury for two*reasons.*One, Wisconsin is a place that has a gun*culture that's not synonymous with*criminal activity.*The idea of saying you want to*alienate a gun owner would not*have been persuasive enough.*The idea of saying, hey, they*were acting in self-defense*might have been compelling,*except for the jury instruction," Coates explained.
She said the jury instruction said jurors had to look at the case through the eyes of then 17-year-old Rittenhouse, not in hindsight. The jurors had to access the reasonableness of Rittenhouse's actions and decide whether it was his belief that he had to use self-defense.
"When you saw him take the stand*and explain why he himself*thought he was in lethal danger*at that point, that probably was*the one that tipped the needle," Coates said.
"He believed that it was*reasonable to do so and now the*burden went back to the*prosecution where it always*should stay to say, hey, we have*proven that he was not*reasonable in his belief, that*he was in a kill or be killed*scenario," she added.
Wisconsin law requires that when a self-defense claim is raised, prosecutors must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around as it is in other jurisdictions, Coates explained.
In order for the prosecution to successfully make its active shooter argument, attorneys would have had to present evidence that disproves Wisconsin's self-defense threshold, according to Coates.
"Of course, the two people*who were killed might have been*in a position to do so, but they couldn't testify, they were dead," she said, adding that the third person who was shot,*Gaige Grosskreutz*testified that Rittenhouse fired when Grosskreutz aimed his gun at him.
The whole trial was set-up as a gun grab (IMO) and their 2nd amendment was at stake, was always going to be a big ask to convict him especially in view of the prosecution who were essentially caught tampering with evidence, I watched quite a bit of this trial, he seemed to come across as a wanna be Rambo but it came on top with a mob who were about to kill him, and he had to make an instant decision, his travelled distance to Kenosha was half the distance of one of the guys he killed, I think the turning point of the trial was when the person he injured admitted to pointing his gun at the Kid 1st, the prosecution lawyer had his hands covering his face in astonishment.
All isn't lost however, CNN and co. are stoking up the riots as a consolation prize.
The kid will soon be one of the richest 19 year olds in Merica
Bobs headline sums it up. Bonkers country.
Asshole republican feckwit idiot rednecks
Guns don't kill people
American idiots walking around with guns kill fecking loads of people 🙄
It’s sad (and mad) how divided America is over guns, innit.
The real question is why does a member of the public need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? It’s like saying that America is a war zone, so that’s why they need to be carrying.
Regardless of this case, any country that lets a 17 year old walk around with a gun is bonkers.
The 2nd amendment is a joke. Written in a time where the deadliest weapon was a musket that took half a minute to reload and was as accurate as Ken Zohore’s left foot now allows people to walk around with military grade machine guns.
Bonkers
even if he's cleared of murder, surely taking an automatic weapon and entering a town where there are riots ongoing is reckless enough for him to be guilty of something?
I think If you look deeper into the USA Black's and Whites , Republicans and Democrats they all carry guns tol defend and kill each other with .
If the second amendment is so bad why doesn't the Democrats grow a pair and get rid if it ??
Obama was in power for quite some time and Biden is there now, hypocrisy is the word to use In the USA .
It's their issues let them live with it , our opinion isn't going to effect matters.
I'm so glad and proud of our country and its standards even with all its faults.
mozzer rhymes almost with tosser defending the little cnut in 4,3,2,1
USA, the Land of the Free: more like the Land of the Apocalypse.
it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. For an amendment to be approved, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass the amendment. ... Then, three-fourths of all states must ratify the amendment, either in their statehouses or at a special convention.
You can see it from both sides but I suppose protests/riots like that are the "perfect" opportunity to use your right to bear arms.
Bonkers place.
Always reminds me of family guy https://youtu.be/RpeUznIhgLU
I must admit, I thought Rittenhouse would be found guilty of manslaughter, and get off with a short sentence, but anyone thinking he was going to go down for murder had obviously not read anything about the circumstances.
The problem here is that an awful lot of people had been fed a line by the media, about a violent white racist who 'crossed state lines' to deliberately cause trouble, when the reality was far from that. When the truth came out, there's been an awful lot of back-pedalling by people who should have done their own research, before leaping to conclusions (and that includes the press and tv). They seemed all too keen to jump on a story without really looking into the detail. Once the evidence came to court, it was always going to be a case of self-defence.
And now they've turned the story around. It's no longer a murder case, it's a racist one, with the cry being "What if he'd been black? White man's privilege, etc". Thing is, he wasn't, and neither were any of the other people involved.
Okay, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying anyone deserved to die, and I also think Rittenhouse should shoulder part of the blame. But the way the media has twisted and used this whole affair - not once, but twice - and how the various factions of the US media have chosen to present it for their own purposes - that's the real story here.
The whole thing sets a precedent for “self defence” where you carry a gun get into an argument and shoot someone citing self defence.
Absolute madness you can just carry a gun to “defend a town” against protesters and shoulder no blame at all for killing someone whatever the circumstances.
The biggest argument against allowing gun ownership is how a situation like this can escalate so quickly just because of the gun.
And the fact he’s become a political figure with certain politicians using him to gain popularity shows the state politics in that country is in.
Yep.
Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry 🤔
Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .
2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""
Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .
The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.
Absolutely correct and it shows how insane America is. At the very least this judgment will vindicate and encourage armed vigilantism. Surely the US police need this judgment like a hole in the head. You can just see the right wingers promoting this case as "Kyle's Law".
As for Shittenhouse, what's the bet he can look forward to a hugely lucrative future in US Republican politics.
I'd disagree that it sets a precedent. The gun laws are so loony out there that these things have already been happening. Those proud boy idiots who travelled from protest to protest were armed in lots of cases. Lots of armed militias were at numerous protests, on a broad spectrum from people dedending their businesses, to white power militias, to black panthers.
The main difference here is that a mentally ill criminal seemed to decide he'd try and commit suicide by attacking a pasty, out of his depth, armed loser. Bit of sympathy for the 2nd and 3rd lads who got involved, they may well have thought they were challenging a roving gunman. As you say though, when gun laws are so ridiculous this kind of thing ca happen all to easily.
I thought it wouldn't be long in coming, the Trump endorsement:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttenhouse.html
Was he a mentally ill criminal?
It’s very similar to the Trayvon martin “self defence” if you want to kill someone in America you just need to wind them up into attacking you and then you can legally shoot them. How does this not create a precedent for that?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...veway-n1282285
That happened since. Some people are desperate to shoot someone and this encourages them because it gives a potential way out.
I don’t see how that goes against anything I’ve said or how one video of someone shows they’re a mentally ill criminal.
All I’ve said is carrying a gun and killing someone shouldn’t pass without punishment otherwise you’ll get all sorts of “self defence” situations created as an excuse to kill.
And a gun escalates situations like this into people getting killed when in most countries it would just be a normal altercation.
I don’t have a dog in the fight I just can’t believe carrying a gun and using it to kill someone can pass with 0 punishment and even people supporting him as some kind of hero all because of bonkers politicisation.
He was a mentally ill criminal, he then chased and tried to beat up a bloke with a gun.
Like I said, I disagree that this case sets a precedent , as there have been mobs of loons with guns at all the protests. The gun laws out there are utterly ridiculous, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent.
I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )
He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge