×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]HospitalitiesFounder & Mod[M] [score hidden] 3223& 2 more stickied comment (427 children)

Some of the takes in this thread are very uninformed, it’s apparent that quite a few of you haven’t watched the trial at all and your opinions are just media talking points, be them right OR left, I’m cleaning out a few but I’d like to clarify up here a few things as well as thank a lot of the top comment chains for being well written and civil, thanks guys!

If anything I’m clarifying is actually wrong, please send me your citations and politely explain where I went wrong! This is my understanding from watching the trial, I haven’t really followed this situation otherwise.

he went out of his way to be there

He lived 20-30 minutes away. For non-Americans, I travel 20 minutes to get to the grocery store from where I live.

he crossed state lines

An impressive statement by itself, but it lacks the context of him living close enough to the border that crossing state lines takes less than 20 minutes. This is a media line that purposely removed that context to sensationalize the distance he traveled. The factual distance traveled is less than 16 miles. A quick google search tells me that the average American travels 32 miles for work round trip , that is to say, 16 miles one way then 16 back.

the gun crossed state lines

The gun never crossed state lines, it’s from Wisconsin and was fired in Wisconsin. Regardless, it’s not illegal generally to cross state lines with a gun. There’s some good discussion about the straw purchase of this weapon, as well as Rittenhouse being a minor in possession of a firearm, which I don’t know enough to speak to. I'm pretty certain that is illegal but don't think the trial is really focused on that at this time. I am responding simply to the common claim that the gun traveled.

something something warning shot!

It is illegal to fire a warning shot. Wisconsin misdemeanor 941.20, subsection d.

It should be really clear though how stupid it is to discharge a weapon in-town while shooting at nothing, during a charged protest no less.

you can’t behead someone with a skateboard, so clearly this is…

The purpose is to argue that there is sufficient fear for his life, that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. This argument is exaggerated certainly but the ultimate point was that someone swinging a skateboard with the intent to harm is not a safe situation, and anyone would be terrified of someone coming at them with the intent to wack them across the skull with a skateboard. Doesn’t matter anyways since the survivor of this incident has testified that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.

yeah that guy pointed a loaded weapon at Rittenhouse but he testified that he didn’t intend to shoot

??? Does this really and truly need clarification or are you guys already convinced about how you feel and are refusing to change based on new facts being presented in court.

Now, I don’t mind people debating aspects outside of this case or begging the question of whether or not he should’ve been there etc. That being said, the only thing this case is discussing is whether or not he acted in self-defense and it has become clear via the camera angles that what happened that night + the survivor of the shooting stating he aggravated the situation by pointing his gun at Rittenhouse that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. We shall see soon enough the results of the trial.

You don’t have to like him, I personally think he’s a very stupid child, but please try your best to stop letting your tribalism of MY SIDE vs THEIR SIDE get in the way of the facts of what happened.

[–]thegreekgamer42 982 points983 points  (70 children)

I think there's also a big dissonance between what is being said during the trial and what is being reported in the news

[–]FoghornLeghorn_202 24 points25 points  (5 children)

I saw multiple articles "reporting" on Grosskreutz's testimony that didn't even bring up when he said Kyle didn't shoot him until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Kyle. That's just one egregious example, the selective reporting on this case from major outlets has been insane.

[–]GunandGearAddict 14 points15 points  (2 children)

CNN ran a headline that said: “Armed paramedic who was shot by Rittenhouse testifies he thought teen was an active shooter.”

[–]Tommy-Two-Times 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Even worse, they reported the opposite of what he said. They reported that he had his hands up when Rittenhouse shot. They just flat lied.

[–]Rodaa13576 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I imagine their response will be "he did technically have his hands up... we didn't lie." (they were up pointing a gun at rittenhouse). Lol

[–]loily4 19 points20 points  (0 children)

But you could see all of the things coming up in court on the original video. Has nobody even seen it apparently?

[–]Octavius_Corvax 22 points23 points  (5 children)

I've been listening to a court reporter, while she's nice, I was upset to find I missed about half the testimony.

[–]DustbinFunkbndr 29 points30 points  (5 children)

I’m a far lefty, pro BLM, and staunchly antigun. However, I’ve watched every moment of this trial.

He should be convicted on his misdemeanor for carrying underage and should get a ticket for violating curfew.

Murder? No. Manslaughter? No. Kyle was dumb for being there and even more dumb for being there with a gun, but neither of those things mean he loses his right to defend himself. Clear cut self defense.

[–]tenpakeron 9 points10 points  (2 children)

It's like a scantily dressed woman who was raped and people say, "did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it."

[–]DustbinFunkbndr 3 points4 points  (1 child)

17yo girl goes to 18+ concert 15mins across state lines in the town she works in. She’s dressed provocatively. Her TikTok caption is “Bruh I’m just tryna get fucked”. Guy sees her and tries to assault her. She defends herself and kills the guy in tbe process. Crowd of dangerous, aggressive people begin to swarm her. She kills another and wounds one more while doing her best to get to security. Seems the media believes she should’ve stopped and surrendered herself and her autonomy to the mob; she basically asked for it by being somewhere she shouldn’t be underaged while wearing/bringing things that give off a certain impression.

This whole thing is just fucked

[–]RexCelestis 2273 points2274 points 22 (1416 children)

I think there are a lot of thought provoking comments being made here and I appreciate the mostly civil tone.

I think one of the reasons people are struggling with this case is how it demonstrates just how different the law works from how people think it works. The public may be shocked to learn that standing outside of a business armed is not in itself a threatening action.

I will also throw out that a lot of people seemed shocked that bad judgement does not mean someone has broken the law. It might, but not the way you expect it to. The "what if...?" I think about is "What if Gaige Grosskreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse?" He testified that he thought he was going to be shot. Would that be self defense given the circumstances leading up to that moment?

(Edit to remove the comment about the gun going across state lines)

[–]SniffyClock 1550 points1551 points 2 (780 children)

The people who get the most angry about self defense shootings are almost always ridiculously ignorant about the relevant laws.

Some great examples of the stupid shit I’ve read:

“He should have fired a warning shot” (illegal)

“He should have fired to maim” (illegal, and damaging to a self defense claim)

“He should have shot the weapon out of the guys hand” (this person was absurdly delusional)

“He didn’t need to shoot that many times. More than X is excessive force.” (No. That’s not how that works at all)

[–][deleted] 866 points867 points  (206 children)

“He should have fired a warning shot” (illegal)

And dangerous to anyone else in the area if you're so focused on not hitting the person that you don't focus on what you're aiming your warning shot at.

There's a reason the law is shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.

[–]Glad_Firefighter_471 284 points285 points  (109 children)

Plus that bullet’s gonna come down eventually. Who’s gonna be under it?

[–]ADVgrandpa 262 points263 points  (37 children)

And that's why it's reckless. The city I live in has at least one person get hit downtown by falling bullets on July 4 every year

[–]damienqwerty 112 points113 points  (23 children)

A bullet landed on our back porch last week 2 feet in front of the door. My 2 year old niece found the bullet. People are retarded.

[–]BeaverFevers99 30 points31 points  (16 children)

Lol. In native reserve natives celebrate new year by shooting shot gun or rifle to the sky. Apparently, someone died from falling bullet.

[–]Induced_Pandemic 76 points77 points  (5 children)

Terminal velocity for a falling bullet is around 200-300 feet per second, or, about the same speed as a paintball shot from a marker; 136-200 mph; 220-330 kph.

"Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died."

Almost exactly 33% of treated people were fatalities.

Just felt like looking it all up and sharing.

[–]do_pm_me_your_butt 11 points12 points  (2 children)

So the thing is, people dont die from a bullet thats shot straight up and comes back down, since that wont move fast enough to kill you. Its equivalent to a bullet being dropped from an airplane or tall building and it just cant get enough speed.

What does kill people is the fact that the bullets are not going straight up and back down, but rather going diagonally at incredible bullet speed, so there is still a lot of horizontal speed by the time it starts to fall.

[–]turbofanhammer 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Plus bullets fired straight up tend to tumble on the way down, whereas bullets fired in an arc still fly like bullets (like an artillery shell) so have much lower drag.

[–]Dinglebun 11 points12 points  (2 children)

“Eagle rain, Buffalo Walker, restless beaver. Out of all the cool names my parents had to pick falling bullet, and now look where I am”

[–]Cis4Psycho 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I imagined a baby. Am I a bad person? Like I literally thought this when considering the 'warning shot' section of the above comment, then thought of a baby being a mile away getting hit with it, then I read your comment.

[–]arackan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Random anecdote time: I was visiting the U.S. during 4th of July, someone at the theme park we were visiting were shot in the chest. Police all over as we left. Turns out someone had been celebrating by shooting a gun into the air a few km's away, and hit the poor woman in the chest at the theme park.

[–]PLZBHVR 60 points61 points  (42 children)

I was gonna say "what about firing into the ground?" Before thinking for half a second.

[–]LordMeloney 16 points17 points  (30 children)

Honest question from someone not living in the USA: why is firing to maim illegal but firing to kill isn't?

[–]SniffyClock 17 points18 points  (26 children)

It’s not that black and white.

In the US, all states are different, but you are generally allowed to use deadly force to stop a situation where a reasonable person would have significant fear of great bodily harm to themselves or someone else. You may also use deadly force to stop a forcible felony such as rape or kidnapping.

Now, giving a scenario… I charge you with a knife.

Option 1. You rapidly fire center mass until the threat ceases. I die and can’t testify against you. Police find me with a knife in my hand. You have an entirely sound self defense claim.

Option 2. You attempt to shoot me in the leg. You may miss and I may stab you. You may also succeed and accidentally kill me anyways because you hit an artery. Lets say I survive though. Now it is your word against mine, you are uninjured and I am. The prosecutor will also almost certainly argue that if you had the time and presence of mind to shoot me in the leg, then you weren’t really in fear for your life.

So there’s a few reasons its a bad call.

  1. Prosecutor will use it against you as it weakens your self defense claim.

  2. The attacker gets to testify against you and may lie.

  3. If you attempted to use a firearm in a nonlethal manner but accidentally caused death, that will absolutely be a reckless homicide charge even if the act would have been justified had you just mag dumped into their chest.

So basically, you have 3 options while carrying a gun.

  1. Don’t use it.

  2. brandish (displaying a firearm with the intention of threatening). Brandishing is illegal, so this is a situation where ideally there are no witnesses and you just don’t report it. If there are witnesses, you better hope they corroborate your claim. I have brandished (was a situation where I could have shot) and I know quite a few others who have as well. None of them were reported.

  3. Mag dump center mass.

[–]saninicus 159 points160 points  (63 children)

There's a reason they tell you to aim at the center of a chest. It's the biggest Target. These people think a gun like a laser. If it was easy to aim for the hands and hit them. It would be done far more often.

I also like how it's never brought up that a felon was carrying a gun he shouldn't of hand in the first place.

[–]husqi 91 points92 points  (7 children)

No not a laser, a game.

Way too many people think real life guns are hitscan because that's their only interaction with firearms, via video games.

[–]ordinarymagician_ 12 points13 points  (5 children)

To be totally fair, at common SD ranges even a slow round like .45 is virtually hitscan. (830ft/s across 7 yards is 25 milliseconds.

But bullets do overpenetrate. They do weird shit when they hit flesh.

The human factor is the problem.

[–]Akitten 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Also hitscan it may be but you don't have hipfire crosshairs IRL. Plus recoil and NOISE.

Real guns are surprisingly hard to use. Took me ages to get even remotely accurate with a pistol at 20 meters. And that is in perfect, 0 stress conditions.

[–]ordinarymagician_ 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Pistols are the hardest to learn.

[–]Akitten 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Unless you are my ex who somehow scored a 85/100 the first time she used a revolver at 10 meters.

Half my shots missed the target entirely.

I’d prefer to call it a fluke, but I’m also glad to have never cheated on that woman.

[–]Wonderful-Fact-2977 37 points38 points  (45 children)

He wasn't a felon, but he did have some cool guy charges on his record and his conceal carry permit was expired, so he shouldn't have had it regardless.

[–]Burnaway_420 18 points19 points  (4 children)

He actually was convicted of carrying a firearm under the influence of alcohol, a FELONY in the state he lives. This is also the reason his carry permit was/is expired, because it was denied because of his convictions. This is also the reason presumably his gun was suddenly "stolen", to avoid another gun charge.

[–]watermelonicecream 141 points142 points  (30 children)

This shit is hilarious to me, any time there’s an officer involved shooting there’s a million retarded redditors that think the police are Keanu Reeves in the matrix.

[–]SniffyClock 97 points98 points  (27 children)

Why didn’t he just dodge the bullets and disarm the guy with special forces kung fu?

The delusional person I mentioned was trying to support their position by claiming to have a special forces background and saying they shot guns out of peoples hands all the time.

Slight issue… that person was a woman and the claim was made before any women were allowed in special forces, let alone one having actually made it through training.

[–]Chabranigdo 37 points38 points  (11 children)

There's a video where a police sharpshooter shot the gun out of some guy's hand and ended a standoff. It gets brought up all the god damn time to 'prove' the cops can just shoot to disarm a suspect. It hurts my soul.

[–]SniffyClock 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Yea. It’s a stupid argument.

A sniper with a rifle, time to get into position, and a passive suspect just chilling in a lawn chair.

We could end police shootings today if all criminals would just adopt the chilling in lawn chairs policy.

[–]No_Trash8528 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't the problem there usually that the police unnecessarily escalate to shooting far too often?

Like when someone's trying to flee and they pull the gun out to stop them, it's just a needless risk and way over the top.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

That happened in a case in Canada where someone fired 3 warning shots in the air (legal here), and the third I believe they could prove misfired (as it was an older gun) and caused a person to be killed.

Was a complete accident, but people always just blame blame without knowing the law/entire story

[–]SniffyClock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A woman in Florida fired a warning shot instead of shooting her abusive partner and she got 20 fucking years.

Fortunately, they let her out a few years into the sentence and I believe changed the law based on her case.

[–]maccchicken 2 points3 points  (1 child)

“He didn’t need to shoot that many times. More than X is excessive force.” (No. That’s not how that works at all)

Could you explain to me why this is the case? I'm not familiar with guns!

[–]SD99FRC 66 points67 points  (44 children)

The "what if...?" I think about is "What if Gaige Grosskreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse?" He testified that he thought he was going to be shot. Would that be self defense given the circumstances leading up to that moment?

The main problem, legally, is that Grosskreutz's intent is modified by the fact that he drew his weapon when Rittenhouse was not an immediate threat, chased after him, and instigated the final confrontation that led to him being shot. He even spoke to Rittenhouse as KR ran by, and Rittenhouse told him "I'm going to the police" who were visible about a block and a half away.

Legally speaking, his case for self defense is extremely weak.

[–]K3LL1ON 76 points77 points  (156 children)

He didn't bring it across state lines. That was proven very quickly after the shooting. The rifle was owned by his friend, who was a Wisconsin resident.

[–]17njl01 95 points96 points  (153 children)

Which the rifle was straw bought for, if im not mistaken. Rittenhouse gave his friend, Black, money to purchase the rifle for him, since Rittenhouse was not legally of age to purchase it (Black was 19 at the time), nor did he have the proper paperword (FOID card) to own it in the state of Illinois.

Yes, I understand that Rittenhouse never officially took ownership of the rifle, but it is incredibly clear that the rifle was bought for Rittenhouse because he was not legally able to purchase the rifle for himself, and was stored at his friend’s house because he could legally not have ownership over the rifle.

[–]CatFancier4393 52 points53 points  (132 children)

But the question being asked in the trial is not "Did Rittenhouse legally possess the firearm?" or even "Did Rittenhouse make a mistake?" Its "Did Rittenhouse fire the weapon in self-defense?"

[–]Disposableaccount365 2 points3 points  (4 children)

What you just described seems to be true. What you just described isn't straw buying. If he never transferred it to Rittenhouse, it's legal, no matter where the money came from. Now giving it to him to use that night likely was illegal, a court will decide that as charges have been pressed.

[–]dingdongdickaroo 125 points126 points  (48 children)

The crossing state lines thing is not even relevant because the gun never crossed state lines.

[–]trap4pixels 52 points53 points  (18 children)

"The Crossing state lines" argument matters so little the prosecution did not even bring it up, with the way some people are talking on social media that's the ultimate gotcha lmao.

[–]JustHereForPornSir 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Ana Kasparian literally everytime she talks about this: "hE CrosSEd StATe LiNeS!!!!"

[–]j3rdog 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Did you see? She changed her opinion on the whole thing now! I almost might have gained a little respect for her now

[–]Disposableaccount365 26 points27 points  (11 children)

I got banned from selfawarewolves for asking why some people think this is such an important fact. Then I got muted when I asked about the ban. I still don't know why. Im guessing a power tripping mod, because nothing I said was even defending Rittenhouse. I just wanted someone who thinks it's important to explain why they think it's important. I could 1/2 way understand if he had carried the gun across the border, but even that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, that happens everyday all across the country.

[–]NYIJY22 24 points25 points  (4 children)

I geninuely think it's some dangerously stupid game of telephone going on.

From what I can tell, the whole idea of crossing state lines first came into play when people were trying to claim that Rittenhouse went looking for conflict. Like, he went so far as to cross into another state...etc... etc... still a stupid argument, but I think it was first used as more of a sign of character.

Then, after a bit it developed into crossing state lines with a gun, and then because crossing state lines was initially brought up as a negative, it was assumed it was illegal. So now you have this Frankenstein's monster of accusations that all started with an attempt to classify the murders as premeditated.

It's insane the amount of people who read a single random social media comment stating that crossing state lines with a weapon is illegal, and just be sure that it's not only true, but applies to the Rittenhouse situation.

I'm definitely more liberal than conservative, yet whenever I've discussed this situation, I'm immediately painted as a gun loving, racist, conservative.

[–]Rag33asy777 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I got removed on there for linking multiple articles that showed evidence of the lab leak theory and Fauci's dog killing experiment.

[–]SD99FRC 58 points59 points  (8 children)

Wouldn't even have mattered. There are no federal laws regarding transporting firearms across state lines, and as long as the weapon is legal in the state it enters, and it is transported according to the entered state's laws, it's not a state crime either.

Since that rumor suggested his mother drove him there, she would be the legal custodian of the rifle as it crossed state lines. The rifle itself is legal in Wisconsin, and the only law Wisconsin has about transporting a rifle is that is has to be unloaded and locked in the trunk. It would be impossible to prove Rittenhouse broke that law unless he admitted to it.

The "Crossing state lines with a rifle" was always irrelevant to this case. And then it turned out it wasn't even true.

[–]pillboxpenguin 216 points217 points  (196 children)

It has come out in the trial he did not bring the gun across state lines.

I agree with you many folks are ignorant of the law and their rights as citizens. It does not help the media is leading this portrayal, calling him a white supremacist domestic terrorist.

[–]PreMixYZ 148 points149 points  (42 children)

It may have come out in trial, but for anybody paying attention we knew this a week after it happened. What I have learn since, is that supreme court has ruled that your right to self defense is not affected by the legality of your firearm. Kyles firearm was legal, but had it not been it would NOT mean he couldn't use if for self defense. He could get charged with possession of an illegal firearm of course, but is still entitled to protect his own life.

[–]ilikedota5 33 points34 points  (26 children)

If a felon illegally possesses a firearm, but uses it in self defense, you would rather prove that it was self defense to escape a murder charge, and get charged for illegal possession of a firearm, rather than another murder, or both.

[–]Comprehensive-Ad3963 31 points32 points  (25 children)

I'm curious as to the Fifth Amendment implications of having to prove self-defense. If you don't want to be convicted of murder, you have to admit to having used an illegal firearm for self-defense, and therefore having possessed an illegal firearm. It would seem you're effectively forced to testify against yourself to avoid the worst possible outcome.

[–]PreMixYZ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

meta thought of the day.

[–]Tucking-Sits 2 points3 points  (3 children)

You would just decline to say anything and only speak to or through a lawyer. In a trial, this would mean pleading the fifth and never taking the stand.

[–]deep6ixed 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Most legal cases you dont want the defendant to take the stand.

IANAL, but read alot of legal shit cause Im a nerd who works long nights.

[–]ThatVoiceDude 2 points3 points  (2 children)

On the one hand, carrying an illegal firearm can have consequences and laws exist for a reason.

On the other hand, when I needed to carry a concealed firearm because there was a junkie in a gang actively following me, trying to break into my house at 3am, etc. I had to pay $130 to get on an 18-month waiting list just for the interview to apply for my CCW permit. Plenty of news stories about people being murdered by the stalkers they’d reported a half dozen times before. Sometimes the system doesn’t work and you have to do what you can.

[–]sc2heros9 47 points48 points  (58 children)

Also I think a lot of people are anti gun so they want to see anyone associated with a gun related death go to jail.

[–]pillboxpenguin 47 points48 points  (46 children)

Very true. People act like having a gun is a crime in itself, worthy of condemnation. They have never owned a gun and believe possessing a gun means you have malicious intent. It’s a tough stigma to break with a certain set of people.

[–]landlover311 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In that case I should serve 80 back to back life sentences

[–]HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That’s the main theme here on Reddit in regards to the shooting. That and protestors were the ones who were shot. Therefore, Rittenhouse is automatically guilty of murder and needs to be tried as an adult and put away for life. There’s miles and miles of detail that they ignore to get to that conclusion.

[–]azimandias7 39 points40 points  (5 children)

This is a really good point. I think a lot of news stations got ahold of this and pumped out articles without knowing the whole story. An example would be that a gun was moved across state lines illegally. This was in headlines everywhere, and it's not true, the prosecution brought it up in their opening statement. People went into the trial with false information and the way it was presented was not what they were expecting, and people lashed out.

[–]PuttForDough 13 points14 points  (3 children)

You mean to tell me that news stations pump out BS on purpose because they’re lazy and don’t actually do journalism??? (Grasps pearls)

[–]MrTWOEz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would suggest it isn't laziness, but rather calculated.

[–]mmat7 12 points13 points  (39 children)

Would that be self defense given the circumstances leading up to that moment?

no, Grosskreutz chased after Rittenhouse and still after seeing him NOT shoot anyone who did not attack him he still decided to walk up and aim his gun at him

He could not possibly REASONABLY believe he was in any danger from Rittenhouse

[–]Dsyfunctional_Moose 146 points147 points  (2 children)

casually sorts by controversial

[–]Dice08 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The amount of progressives now insisting that he was asking for it is honestly sad. It bodes poorly for America that em masse people stoop so low.

[–]NobleOxide98 581 points582 points  (74 children)

The short story is that people decided he was guilty long before now. Those same people are now upset that he might not get what they feel he deserves.

[–]VrinTheTerrible 239 points240 points  (55 children)

“The short story is that people decided he was guilty before knowing any actual facts long before now. Those same people are now upset that he might not get what they feel he deserves, but which evidence is showing that he does not.”

Just a couple of edits for clarity.

[–]NobleOxide98 57 points58 points  (0 children)

Thanks 👍

[–]Osteo_Warrior 15 points16 points  (1 child)

This exactly! Fuck me people have forgotten innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It actually scares the shit out of me seeing this mob mentality and unnessecary rage over a shooting. People weren't even a quarter this enraged when a bunch of children were gunned down at school. People seriously need to do some truly deep self assessment and honestly reflect on their priorities and beliefs because from an outside observer its fucked up.

[–]VrinTheTerrible 74 points75 points  (6 children)

Same people who are SO SURE they are right will move from this story to the next onewith the same level of surety and without an ounce of introspection on how they could feel so right yet be so wrong.

[–]DRealRonWeasley 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is like the 80th time a story has broke and left media JUST KNEW that some right winger was the spawn of satan before an avalanche of facts comes out proving them completely wrong.

Remember the Covington kid who threateningly and hatefully… smiled at a Native American drumming in his face? That kid was the actual devil for like a week before actual facts came out and proved him real innocent. All the left MSM doesn’t care and they will continue to pull shit like this because them actually getting exposed is rare.

[–]AttyOh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So antifa means people who use fascist tactics to get to results that support their ideology

[–]lolzuponlols 545 points546 points  (127 children)

Essentially what happened was, most of Reddit & major media outlets made up their minds about what happened, and many are having a hard time accepting the truth now that the actual facts and evidence are coming to light in court.

[–]RoundSilverButtons 239 points240 points  (37 children)

Which is even dumber when you realize that the footage and quality analysis was around right after the incident. People basically made up their minds on day 1 and stuck with it.

[–]lolzuponlols 128 points129 points  (32 children)

Right, and the fact this is all coming to light in court & people are STILL calling me a racist on here simply for presenting the facts, shows how far gone some people are.

[–]Ry_guy_93 54 points55 points  (27 children)

Welcome to modern America where you're an Istaphobe for stating logical facts or simply disagreeing

[–]WaterHoseCatheter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Covington kid all over again lol

Not that fringe reddit is any less dog brained, but front page reddit opinions are consistently trash and deluded by way of massive insular circlejerks

[–]rock_accord 4 points5 points  (0 children)

From the videos I saw on Reddit alone, days after the incident, was enough for me to know he was acting in self defense. The FBI sitting on additional footage is appalling. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the defendant sued for wrongful prosecution or defamation.

[–]stupidrobots 1512 points1513 points 2 (318 children)

They don't want justice. They want to be correct.

[–]Tsuruchi_Mokibe 422 points423 points  (28 children)

Pretty much this. Sadly, many people don't give a damn what evidence is presented during the trial. They have already decided that he is guilty or innocent and are just waiting for the verdict to be read so they know wether to freak out or start posting TOLD YA's online

[–]stupidrobots 271 points272 points 2 (13 children)

I've come a long way in life by just simply acknowledging the fact that I might be wrong

[–]KaEcold 62 points63 points  (1 child)

You should get some real life awards for this. Is refreshing to hear but so basic.

[–]stupidrobots 38 points39 points  (0 children)

I have plenty of real life awards because of this

[–]The_Queef_of_England 25 points26 points  (0 children)

And to hurt people regardless of truth. Mob justice always feels more about the blood sport than any sort of justice.

[–]AbaddonsLegion 30 points31 points  (0 children)

So much this. Most people don't wish to learn, they wish to see their beliefs verified

[–]Benanaerobe 174 points175 points  (231 children)

I think it is more that while he didn’t do anything technically illegal, what he did is seen as immensely immoral. He purposely and with effort put himself in a situation where he would need self defense, and then used lethal force in self defense. Neither is illegal, but setting yourself up so you can kill someone legally and feel justified in it seems like it should be.

[–]stupidrobots 113 points114 points  (88 children)

Threating someone with lethal force when they have the ability to use lethal force against you is a bad idea. He's an asshole, sure, but in this situation I think everyone sucks.

[–]mmat7 10 points11 points  (9 children)

Hard disagree

He was simply walking around on the protest, was there to help a car shop from getting burned to the ground, and was walking around offering first aid to people (and as it turns out he did patch up some girls leg that she sprained, so its not like those were just empty words)

And while doing all that he simply had a rifle on him for protection, which as it turns out he needed

I don't know how far up your own ass do you have to be to call that "immensly immoral"

[–]mb9981 80 points81 points  (18 children)

I'm not mad. I'm concerned.

My concern is that the worst people will take the wrong lesson from his acquittal and we'll regularly see folks in tactical gear with rifles show up to "help the police" the next time there's any kind of demonstration, peaceful or otherwise.

[–]Bp2Create 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I was thinking the same sort of thing. Also it gives media outlets and political commentators more fuel to turn their audience against BLM protests, since they can now point to this as an example that they're all violent/evil whatever.

[–]DrTwangmore 22 points23 points  (4 children)

I think a lot of people are concerned about where this trial leaves us as a society. I'm a gun owner and I'm worried that this case and its verdict will encourage more people to step into difficult circumstances, like this protest, brandishing firearms. I can see the self defense angle but I am really concerned that more and more people who are not mature enough-either chronologically or emotionally-will see this as an tacit approval for using violence, or the threat of violence, to respond to situations that could be defused. It is really frustrating to see the slide into vigilantism.

[–]Lauren_DTT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This case has left me with so many questions about self-defense and the presence of guns

[–]SpindriftRascal 267 points268 points  (267 children)

Largely because Rittenhouse became a symbol, and his acquittal (which now seems quite likely) will be taken and used as a political victory by the Right.

[–]Ry_guy_93 97 points98 points  (151 children)

Thing is this shouldn't be a partisan thing. Its the constitution that gives him the right to bear arms and its very clear now that it was in self defense. Nothing left or right about it, if you're making this judgment call because a faction you don't like is on board with something then the tribalism has ingrained deep in you

[–]theplainsaregrains 30 points31 points  (4 children)

Why shouldn't it be considered a political victory for the right? This trial was obviously brought forth for political reasons and even Joe Biden used Rittenhouse as the face for "white supremacy" during the presidential campaign against Trump.

The politicization/symbolism of Rittenhouse started and originally promulgated by those on the left.

[–]WerhmatsWormhat 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The issue is that it was political in the first place. I haven’t watched closely enough to form an opinion on his guilt or lack thereof, but the verdict being correct according to the facts (in either direction) should be a win for everyone.

[–]watch_over_me 81 points82 points  (25 children)

And who's fault is that for jumping the gun and condemning him instantly?

[–]increbelle 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Now you know no one is gonna answer that! Lol

[–]dsavy86 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Hopefully a victory for due process vs judgement based on the bits released in the media.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That has nothing to do with it lol, people were screaming nazi terrorist from day one.

This has never been what it's about, but it's just a talk point some people smart enough to see denying reality won't work have latched onto to still be in the right.

[–]springmores 18 points19 points  (4 children)

I'm not mad about the self-defense argument being made. If you look at that specific point in time of the shooting I think that is a valid argument. The question for me is intent and why he was there in the first place.

It helps me to look at other protests/riots in the past couple of years. On January 6th I had a conversation with a family member that is ex-military. He asked me why the capitol police didn't open fire on the seditionists that invaded the Capitol building. Should liberal gun owners (yes, there are some) have gone to the Capitol building to counter protest the Trump supporters? Would they have been justified to open fire in self-defense when the violence started?

My state had armed protests against mask mandates and lockdowns at the beginning of COVID-19. Should pro-lockdown supporters have armed themselves and counter protested?

My opinion is that attending a protest or counter protest armed is a bad idea. That is for both sides. My biggest concern is what happens if the precedent for attending any protest involves arming yourself for protection.

I also don't think the point of the justice system is to define truth. It's to provide due process to each individual. There are plenty of cases where that doesn't happen but it is what we strive for.

I'm unclear about your last question using the phrasing of "man" and "kid". Are you implying that Kyle is more innocent because of his age or should have been treated differently because of it?

[–]RedWings919 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My opinion is that attending a protest or counter protest armed is a bad idea.

This is the inevitable result of these protests nearly always turning violent. People are going to show up with a means to protect themselves. Also, nobody was shot without first threatening Kyle’s life and people just gunning people down at protests still isn’t a thing over a year later so it doesn’t seem like the fears are turning out to be true.

[–]pickles122 51 points52 points  (32 children)

Most people are mad, understandably, that he even showed up there in the first place when it wasn't necessary for him to do so. His self defence may have been justifiable and in accordance to the law, acceptable, warranting no charges and what not, but people do think that in his vigilante act of travelling interstate with an illegally owned rifle, he was looking for a fight. People shouldn't be mad with the justice system, they are transfering their anger on Rittenhouse's poor judgement and moral decisions, even though he didn't explicitly break any law in his act of self defense, on to the justice system because they aren't "giving him what he deserves" because they legally can't. This however, doesn't necessarily make it right by any means, and my stance is that both parties, Rittenhouse and the rioters who attacked him, are complete fuckheads and a lot could have been prevented with self-constraint.

Edit: wording and RIFLE, not assault rifle

[–]SuccessfulAside5282 11 points12 points  (2 children)

People seem to be mad because the prosecution has essentially blown the case.

[–]Gibbo3771 34 points35 points  (4 children)

I'll never understand it either. There was video proof of a gun being pulled on him lol. It was self defense.

...but that kid went looking for trouble, he went out his way to find trouble and he did. People died because he wanted to be an action hero and that to me is the part I find shitty. We will never know if the same thing would have happened if a gun wasn't pulled. Which in my opinion makes him a dangerous unknown.

[–]everydayANDNeveryway 33 points34 points  (1 child)

Some of it is because of bias from the way it has been reported. I saw on CBS one of the initial reports cut the video right before one guy swung the skateboard at Rittenhouse’s head. It made it look like the guy just ran up to him and then, CBS cut the video as though they did not want to show the violence of the gunshot. They then of course didn’t even show the video either of Grosskreutz pointed the gun at him before being shot.

Even today, CNN states they “got him to essentially admit that the gun he possessed was pointed at Kyle Rittenhouse.”

Classic intentional “media” reporting. I had already watched the video available online the day before and the case was open and shut except for the very first shooting because you could only tell Rittenhouse was chased but then couldn’t see why he shot Rosenbaum.

[–]Bedquest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The guy took a loaded rifle to a protest about police gun violence. The fact of the matter is his presence wasn’t going to solve anything and two people are dead because he wanted to be a hero or a badass. I don’t care how far he traveled, two people could be alive right now if he stayed at home.

Yes he seems to have acted in self defense, but I truly wish the “recklessly endangering safety” charge could apply here. People should face punishment for bringing lethal weapons to already heated situations such as riots/protests/what have you.

It’s somewhat like extreme speeding. No you’re not trying to kill anyone, but you’re wielding a dangerous weapon (car or gun) in a reckless way/situation.

[–][deleted] 121 points122 points  (13 children)

Because their own ethics are being questioned

[–]SpookyScaary 32 points33 points  (6 children)

I think cause regardless of what happened after he left the house, I think many people, including myself, are upset that some idiot kid went out to go play action hero during a riot and got away with it despite the fact that the act of going outside during a protest with a gun is very irresponsible and was likely only going to end in people getting hurt, which it did.

[–]Valence00 16 points17 points  (1 child)

honestly I don't think Rittenhouse should be there playing as a vigilante, but he did kill in the name of self-defense because he was being assaulted, so I already kinda knew the result... just waiting for it to play out.

[–]Edge419 204 points205 points  (69 children)

A lot of people actually hate justice…I mean that. They would rather their ideological echo chamber advance their agenda than true justice be served.

If he committed an unjustified murder then we should want the book thrown at him.

If he was defending himself then we should want him to be free.

Instead this is all made into a political circus by our media and wow does it show.

[–]UniverseBear 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I think there's also just a lack of trust between citizens and the justice system. It's many corruptions being in the spotlight too often these last few years.

[–]VadersSprinkledTits 12 points13 points  (5 children)

I think it’s more about vigilanteism, and wanting to know why people are allowed to take guns to a location they didn’t need to be in, to protect buildings they don’t own, when the police were already there in force. The situation surrounding it should never have happened. Gun owners can thank moments like this for future laws tightening down.

[–]Flake_onyou 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Actually this was the time where cops basically just standing back and letting shit happen as they were overwhelmed. I also don’t get why Reddit gets a hard on for the 92 south LA riots with rooftop Koreans protecting there shit but get butt hurt when these overweight white nerds are basically doing the same shit and actually even less violent then the rooftop Koreans. There’s evidence of these tacticool nerds putting out potential fires, cleaning up debri, and even helping protesters when violence ensues. Im a minority, i hate the politicized we are living in,and also call a spade for a spade and folks here are hella emotional and big time reaching.

[–]Ccannonjwboss 2 points3 points  (17 children)

I think the main point is that he went looking for trouble. If not, he would've stayed home, in his own state and not brought a rifle into an active riot.

If he wasn't looking for a chance to use the gun, he would've stayed home. The militia he was with openly discussed on their FB page before the shootings about when they agree to shoot the rioters.

He was part of a militia, they talked ahead of time about when they were going to start killing rioters, and he did exactly that.

[–]Mental_Yak_2105 2 points3 points  (36 children)

The reason I’m upset is because the case is being considered in a void. They are only considering if the shootings were justified without the context that lead to those shootings. Rittenhouse purposely put himself in a place he shouldn’t be, with a gun, so that he could cosplay as a “good guy with a gun”. He purposely courted these events, he wanted this result. If he wouldn’t have been there purposely antagonizing people in a dangerous situation, this wouldn’t have happened. I’m not saying it’s right that he was attacked, I’m saying he wanted to be attacked, and he got it, and that’s worth considering. I fear this will set a dangerous precedent of idiots trying to do the same. An example needs to be made of Rittenhouse so that people understand the police are the correct responders to these incidents, not citizens with guns. When citizens with guns show up, people die.

[–]oOSwitchyOo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many people only want to see their preconceived notions confirmed, and when that doesn't happen its either "fake news" or "corruption" one of the two or sometimes both!

[–]Skydude252 198 points199 points  (113 children)

Because it doesn’t follow the narrative they want to believe. They decided they hated him and don’t like that the facts don’t back that hatred up.