Kyle Rittenhouse trial & updates [Verdict: NOT GUILTY]

[luctor-et-emergo]

And when that's broken down to where in the US those occurred, there's an inverse correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates, and a positive correlation between strictness of gun control laws and homicide rates.

Rural vs Urban
Poor vs Rich

Probably a number of other factors that play into this. I do not think that removing gun control in very prohibitive places will lower the amount of gun homicides (necessarily). What I'm trying to say is that without any guns available they would probably be knife deaths or otherwise.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

[From an article]
...
But even more than the prosecution or the verdict, it is really the defense’s strategy that we will have to live with for years to come — a strategy based on a bold and unapologetic acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in carrying a gun. The defense doubled down on the right to bear arms and asserted a right to fire, too. Such a strategy, which has adherents at the poles of the political spectrum, will increase gun violence, not only in red states, but wherever it is allowed to go unchallenged.

In other words, it was about a political agenda. The left wants to eliminate gun rights, self-defense, and by extension, defense of property.

... And what put him in imminent danger serious enough to justify his use of deadly force, according to Mr. Rittenhouse, was the presence of his own gun. Recalling the final moments of his decision to fire at Joseph Rosenbaum, Mr. Rittenhouse testified: “I remember [Rosenbaum’s] hand on the barrel of my gun.”

Nice try, but pure nonsense. Rittenhouse was being attacked. The mob could take his gun and beat him to death. Or stab him. Or shoot him with their guns. His gun was not the source of fear for his life, it was his only defense.

As a prosecutor, I have often seen arguments like these during investigations of police officers who have shot and killed unarmed people. ... From an armed civilian, this claim is different.

Ah, of course. Cops have more rights than normal people. Call the police and hide under your bed. The state will take care of you, but your funeral is on your family.

Instead of distancing Mr. Rittenhouse from or minimizing the effect of his weapon, Mr. Rittenhouse and his lawyers built their case upon it: Because he had a gun, he found himself in a situation where he needed to use it. In other words, the gun he carried was not a deterrent, but the very reason for the escalation to violence.

That is your hypothesis. But there were a lot of people there with guns. They were not attacked.

What Rittenhouse did have was a fire extinguisher, and that is why he was attacked. He put out fires started by the rioters and arsonists. Perhaps a ban on fire extinguishers is in order. Citizens shouldn’t have fire extinguishers, only firemen should have them. Call the fire department, don't try to put out a fire yourself. Leave it to properly authorized agents of the state, in this case, the fire department.

Self-defense laws have ancient roots. They reflect our shared sense that we should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And they are important checks on criminal prosecution.

Checks on criminal prosecution? What does that mean?

But in states that also have weak gun safety laws — like Wisconsin and Georgia — they have given lethal shooters a path to acquittal, as the attorneys for Mr. Rittenhouse, and now Mr. McMichael, well understood.

Gun safety laws? Where did that come from? “Gun safety” was not an issue in either case.

As you would expect, this Supreme Court case has generated the usual briefs from gun rights advocates: the N.R.A., gun clubs, libertarian scholars, Republican politicians. What is strange, and disheartening, is that the petitioners have also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders, who argue that the New York law should be overturned — not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, Black and brown, poor defendants who need to carry guns for self-defense. The public defenders argue that, historically, permits have been issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and members of the middle class to get permits than it is for people of color and the poor. And they argue their clients should have guns just like other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left has met far right in describing dangerous streets and the need to be armed on them.

Theirs is not a legal argument, but a political one,

Wow, a political argument? Just like the entire article. And now opposition to “equity”? That’s not politically correct.

The Second Amendment is already equitable. It’s your gun control laws that are not equitable.

...Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to level “up”— to make guns more readily available to their clients, to all of us. Their vision, if realized, would make the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unremarkable, not only in red states, but across the country.

Yeah, we get it. You oppose the Second Amendment, and in your Utopia, only duly authorized agents of the state may have guns. And of course you are ignoring the fact that criminals already have guns, and they don't care about your gun laws and regulations.

... More guns, no matter in whose hands, will create more standoffs, more intimidation, more death sanctioned in the eyes of the law.

No need to keep repeating yourself. It’s all political and all about your opposition to the Second Amendment.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Speaking of which (h/t Peter Boghossian):

Universities Try to Force a Consensus About Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ies-forced-consensus-kyle-rittenhouse/620809/

[...]

And speaking even further of which:

UPDATE: Rittenhouse no longer enrolled in ASU Online ahead of protest demanding the 'violent blood-thirsty murderer' be removed
After Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in connection to his incident of self defense during the Kenosha riots, leftist students continue to accuse him of being a racist and a murderer
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18501
Addison Smith (29 November 2021)

UPDATE: Campus Reform has confirmed that as of Monday, Rittenhouse is no longer enrolled in the ASU Online program, with the university stating that he is "not currently enrolled in any classes at ASU" and still "has not gone through the ASU admissions process."

Arizona State University students are pressuring the administration to “withdraw” Kyle Rittenhouse from the school’s online program, calling him a “violent blood-thirsty murderer”.

Rittenhouse is currently enrolled in the ASU Online program, and could have even maintained his enrollment had he been convicted of a crime, given that ASU does not require criminal background checks for this programs.

ASU reportedly confirmed to 12News in early November that while Rittenhouse had not gone through the university admissions process, he was at the time "enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university."

On Nov. 19, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges after killing two criminals and injuring a third in what many have deemed a clear case of self-defense.

Despite the not-guilty verdict, leftist students at ASU continue to slander Rittenhouse as a “racist murderer”. A Change.org petition started by ASU students to remove Rittenhouse from the school refers to his attackers as "victims" and calls for him to "pay for his crimes".

Echoing this sentiment, Students for Socialism at ASU announced an upcoming protest against Rittenhouse on Twitter, with demands attached.

https://twitter.com/SFSASU/status/1464324758086959105

“Join us and rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus – Wednesday at 3:30 outside the Nelson Fine Arts Center on campus”, the tweet says.

Demands include withdrawal of Rittenhouse from the university, releasing a statement against “white supremacy and racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse” -- who shot three white people -- and demanding that school funds be redirected to the multicultural center on campus.

“'Even with a not-guilty verdict from a flawed "justice" system - Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims. Join us to demand from ASU that those demands be met to protect students from a violent blood-thirsty murderer,” the demand letter states.

One of the students referred to Rittenhouse as a “mass shooter”, according to Fox News.

"The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all,” they said.

These demands are outgrowths of evidence-less claims by the media that Rittenhouse is a white-supremacist murderer. After footage revealed that Rittenhouse was being pursued, attacked, and even had a loaded gun pointed at him from feet away, prominent leftists have held to the narrative that Rittenhouse was the aggressor.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Someone is going to try and kill that guy.

 

[Invisible Man]

I would love to see Hillsdale or some place offer him a scholarship.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The School of Hard Knocks should give him an honorary Phd.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Someone is going to try and kill that guy.

Unless he tries to become a public figure I doubt that. If he gives one or two more interviews and continues his life, I'm sure at some point people will forget. Next week something else will happen to make the mob go nuts.

 

[Anti Federalist]

“'Even with a not-guilty verdict from a flawed "justice" system - Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims. Join us to demand from ASU that those demands be met to protect students from a violent blood-thirsty murderer,” the demand letter states.

So, no matter what any of us do, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".

Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.

 

[69360]

Someone is going to try and kill that guy.

He should either leave the country or grow a beard and change his name. Stay off TV too.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He should either leave the country or grow a beard and change his name. Stay off TV too.

Wasn't he in jail for three months? I hear his lawyers were playing politics or something.

And was there anyone else out there protecting their businesses that night? Didn't seem to be anyone else high profile.

This is why I don't even give a crap about stuff like this. Look out for yourself.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So, no matter what any of us do, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".

Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.

Mob rule.

Be concerned.

 

[phill4paul]

So, no matter what any of us do, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".

Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.

And hopefully the school caves to the Marxists and he gets a huge settlement from them too. In fact his lawyers should be suing the shit outta the illegal immigrant student club, along with the Students for Socialism, and take away their milk money.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So, no matter what any of us do, as far as the Marxist mob is concerned, it's "guilty as charged".

Hmmm...duly noted and stored for future reference.

And hopefully the school caves to the Marxists and he gets a huge settlement from them too. In fact his lawyers should be suing the shit outta the illegal immigrant student club, along with the Students for Socialism, and take away their milk money.

Average American: "But what does this have to do with Marxists?"

 

[dannno]

Wasn't he in jail for three months? I hear his lawyers were playing politics or something.

Less than 2 months, he said at first he got some flack but he told them what happened and then they were like, "oh, nice.."

And was there anyone else out there protecting their businesses that night? Didn't seem to be anyone else high profile.

There were approximately 100 other armed civilians out there protecting businesses that night.

This is why I don't even give a crap about stuff like this. Look out for yourself.

Ok, just know if something ever happens to you, we will be here to stick up for you..

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There were approximately 100 other armed civilians out there protecting businesses that night.

You keep saying that. I keep asking for evidence, but see none. I would think the marxist media would have been all over that one.

Ok, just know if something ever happens to you, we will be here to stick up for you..

Dude, I call out obvious paid trolls, and people stick up for the trolls. I can safely assume that I'm on my own for anything remotely serious. lol

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Less than 2 months, he said at first he got some flack but he told them what happened and then they were like, "oh, nice.."

No, Rittenhouse said in the Carlson interview that he was in jail for 87 days. This is why I don't believe what people say on the internet. They can't even verify simple facts.

 

[dannno]

No, Rittenhouse said in the Carlson interview that he was in jail for 87 days. This is why I don't believe what people say on the internet. They can't even verify simple facts.

I wouldn't worry too much about people getting 2 months vs. 3 months in jail when it's not really material, he was clearly there and shouldn't have been there anyway. He said he was without running water for over a month I think, and I thought he said he got out in November so I just did that math as opposed to remembering the number of days from the interview. There is a lot of stuff to remember here.

You were the one who thought there was less than a handful of other armed people there, when there were several dozen, I've heard estimates of upwards of 100 or more.

That is a way bigger error and is definitely material.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I wouldn't worry too much about people getting 2 months vs. 3 months in jail when it's not really material, he was clearly there and shouldn't have been there anyway. He said he was without running water for over a month I think, and I thought he said he got out in November so I just did that math as opposed to remembering the number of days from the interview. There is a lot of stuff to remember here.

You were the one who thought there was less than a handful of other armed people there, when there were several dozen, I've heard estimates of upwards of 100 or more.

That is a way bigger error and is definitely material.

I'll bet the extra month was material to Rittenhouse, but okay two months versus three months.

The armed people numbers are too wide ranging, so that's what I'm talking about. I'd like to have more evidence.

 

[Anti Federalist]

[MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION]

Somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was in this thread, you posted a photo of page from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, that was explaining the farce that "self defense" was in the USSR.

Can you re-post that please, want to save that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

@Occam's Banana

Somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was in this thread, you posted a photo of page from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, that was explaining the farce that "self defense" was in the USSR.

Can you re-post that please, want to save that.

No problem. It's certainly a keeper.

I'm pretty sure I posted it in this thread, too. But here it is from the TYT MELTDOWN thread:

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1462630029045678080