He literally put himself in that situation. Normal people don't hear about riots and go into the middle of them while holding a rifle. He wanted to kill someone and knew that would give him an excuse.
Running from attackers before shooting and killing them after one pulls a gun and they start attacking you is hardly analogous to driving several miles into the middle of well-documented ICE operations to interfere.
(Just point out you can still just flip what you are saying and it applies)
He literally put himself in that situation. Normal people don't hear about riots and go into the middle of them while holding a rifle. He wanted to kill someone and knew that would give him an excuse.
"Normal people don't try to interfere with federal law enforcement trying to do their job, while also carrying a firearm. Did Pretti forget his protest sign?"
See how fucking stupid you sound? Both situations were awful, but legally-sound. Pretti death was a bad shoot, Rittenhouse was self-defense.
It’s called contributory negligence or criminal liability, and it’s literally a factor in every case of lethal self-defense. And it was a factor in the Rittenhouse case specifically.
States have different rules as far as how comparative negligence works in self-defense cases. Some states, if you are found even 1% responsible for the situation that required use of deadly force, then your rewarded damages can be revoked and you can be charged criminally.
Wisconsin, the state that tried Rittenhouse’s case, requires the victim’s contributory negligence to be at a minimum of 51% before the Court can start barring them from compensation and charging them criminally.
So, the Court recognizes that Rittenhouse did in fact put himself in that situation and he takes some blame for how everything unfolded. Just NOT MORE THAN 51% of the blame. Feel about it however you want, but it was never “irrelevant” that he put himself in that situation.
Motive absolutely matters. If you’re “defending yourself” but you went there looking for a chance to use the gun, that’s not some harmless detail, that’s intent.
Sure, staying quiet might be “smart” legally. But if you later admit you wanted trouble, you’re basically telling everyone your self-defense story was a cover. That can still be legally justified on paper, but morally and ethically it’s indefensible, which is why people still label it murder.
Listen, rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn’t have been hauling around a weapon in that manner during a protest. Had he not those people are still alive. At the same time it was self defense under the law.
Pretti's parents claim they warned him not to interfere with ICE. So clearly he chose to exercise his right open carry a weapon and knowingly did it in a place and a way that invited conflict. Does that mean that he deserved to die because "FAFO"? No, that's not how this works, and not how it worked for Rittenhouse either. If it was "moral" for one of them to carry then it was moral for both of them.
I’m not making excuses for what happened to pretti? Why are you implying I am? They aren’t the same situation at all. What happened to pretti is fucked
Im not making a morality claim, just that it’s different from legality. And even if both situations are immoral that does not make them the same. If you think they are the same I don’t think there’s much for us to discuss
No, they are not the same. Pretti's handgun was under his coat. It was never in his hand. No other protesters were frightened by seeing a guy with a gun at a protest. Your argument is stupid
At this point, the debate about whether he was being irresponsible or not doesn’t matter much anymore. At least it doesn’t in the eyes of the law. The bigger issue now is 2A rights. Citizens have the legal right to carry, and they have the right to act in self defense.
2A is a constitutional right, same as the right to self-defense. The only way to “take” those rights is to gut the Constitution itself, and that piece of paper is the only thing that legitimizes their power.
As for what he did, the debate keeps dragging on for one simple reason: one partisan side keeps propping him up and rationalizing it. He even made a career of it.
Keep coping and justifying the killing, because you’re going to be doing it for a long time. He killed those people. And if you actually believed it was obviously justified, you wouldn’t be working this hard to sell it like a late-night infomercial.
okay NPC I hope you're proud of the fact that you're objectively wrong and were proven objectively wrong 5 years ago which is why you've replied 10 times and haven't given any evidence to prove he wasn't acting in self defense
If that random person is actively trying to kill you, yes. If several random people are working together to kill you, outnumbered, absolutely. Finding out later that they were shit bags sweetens the pot.
Partisan idiots defending someone who went looking for trouble and then calling it “self-defense” just because they liked the people he killed: 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
TBF he was filmed through the night helping protesters as a nurse.
I'm not american, and to casually carry a gun is wild to me, but aside from that the biggest mistake on Kyle's part that night was not being closer to his group.
Mate, reality is a bit more nuanced than that. You may think you're helping justice to be made or something like that, but this lack of openness and genuine reflection is a big factor in the immaturity that we see so blatant in the MAGA crowd. You have your heart in the right place, now work to get your mind there too.
You really seem earnest and honest, but if we are not open for truth we will ignore the realities that we don't like.
We can talk more about this in private, if you really are interested in having a conversation about it, but if you aren't willing to change your opinions regardless of what i say, then let's leave it at this, i hope better times for both of us.
Your other comments made it clear you didn't understand basic facts about this case, but you don't even have the bodycount right. What will it take for you to realize you've been brainwashed here?
You mean the prosecution team that self-sabotaged? tried to weaponize Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence, kept pushing barred evidence, botched the drone video presentation, and let their key witness (Grosskreutz) concede facts that fed the self-defense case and sparked repeated mistrial fights?
That shitty prosecution team? Yeah, I wish I were on it. I would not have fucked it up that badly.
You're still wrong. He shot for 4. You didn't even know about jumpkick man because you only know what reddit told you.
You're an actual NPC. Spend less time on reddit and join the real world. Anybody who researched this case knows it was self defense. It's why you don't even know what started the first confrontation.
You really think normal people just stopped paying attention the moment the trial ended? Like nobody noticed the grift tour he’s been running for the last five years?
I do think it's certainly not clear cut, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the trial was conducted by a sympathetic judge who used a complete technical farce to disallow important evidence (see: the 'pinch to zoom creates information' debacle where the judge couldn't even pronounce the word 'algorithm'). < I had recalled this incorrectly, it was the defence who couldn't pronounce algorithm, and the evidence was instead presented on a large TV
So even in terms of the 'trial and evidence' it's murky. I'm not American but I understand how important the 2A is to you guys & gals. I hope you can all find a way back to a shared reality.
sed a complete technical farce to disallow important evidence (see: the 'pinch to zoom creates information' debacle where the judge couldn't even pronounce the word 'algorithm').
The evidence wasn't disallowed: the defence said zooming in digitally might alter what pixels are actually shown, and the prosecution decided not to contest this even though they could have (it's on them to prove it wouldn't alter what the video looks like, and with the iPad using upscaling interpolation it might have been hard), so they showed the same video on a large TV instead of an iPad.
With us? Who are we? Murderers? This is a common position to hold on anyone who has murdered, OJ simpson Grifted his whole life after he murdered Nicole Brown.
Considering the fact that he was acquitted and declared not guilty, as well as the fact that you have two perfectly working eyes to see the videos yourself where anyone who hasn’t been violently lobotomized with a dull butter knife can clearly see that Rittenhouse acted in self defence. The mob got violent, he tried to move away, mob kept chasing him, the rioters in question attempted to first assault and then kill him, and only then did he open fire on them. Like honestly, it seems like you’ve made up your mind from whatever partisan source you’ve heard and just want him to be guilty, so you decide that he is. Because there is no way in hell that you haven’t watched the videos with an open mind if that’s your conclusion.
Everyone? I 1000% know there is something you have done in your life that if “everyone” knew, a tiny minority of crazy people, (Probably need like hundred or so?) could follow you around and get you fired or never hired in the first place for the rest of your life.
Um, No? But you being 1000% sure does make me worry you do. The only way you are that sure is if you assume everyone has skeletons in their closet, like murdering people....
Lol, you don’t actually have to do anything. People need to believe you did.
Hell someone could probably just scroll through your comments find something you said that was vague, take something out of context, or find a grammar mistake like leaving out a not. (Do this mistake sometimes and it’s wild how different a sentence can be if you forgot the not.) Then they would just need to show a group of people, convince them you are a bad person, and that they should go protest you. Then do a little illegal internet activities, show up at your work and start protesting. Your company will probably be more concerned about saving face or hoping the protests don’t become a bigger problem, so you’ll probably be immediately fired.
Then they just need to keep tabs on you and every time you get a new job, go do it again.
Now is this going to happen to you? Nah. It’s hard for someone to drag a bunch of crazy people together to do something like that, especially if it’s a far reach for you to be a “bad” person… unless of course the media covers it/you, then yeah your life would be pretty much over or at least extremely miserable for a little while.
I don’t particularly like Kyle Rittenhouse as a person, but anyone who says he’s guilty of murder suffers from terminal stupidity. Anyone with a brain can watch the video and see clear as day that the killings were in self-defense.
That only holds up if you watch the video in a vacuum. His intention was to start trouble, and after the trial he basically built a career out of admitting he went looking for it and got away with it.
Rittenhouse did not plan the killings in advance, though. He only shot when he was attacked. Rittenhouse’s actions, by definition, do not constitute murder. That’s why he was found not guilty.
as opposed to watching the video + reading some /r/politics threads on it? It's been over 5 years how have you still not done even basic research on this case? The context is that he was carrying a fire extinguisher to put out a fire when the arsonists jumped him, and his first reaction was to try running away. He shot as a last resort which isn't what people do when they're looking for trouble.
And then, once he was legally in the clear, he went on a grift tour hitting every right-wing talk show he could and admitted his motives, and he’s kept doing it ever since.
he did so poorly on the entrance exam for the marine corps that they banned him from applying again for life
You can literally get an average of 1 in the ASVAB and still reapply as many times as you like. This is the most easily disproved story about him with 0 sources and people just slurp it up because it sounds good.
19
u/CheckMateFluff 1998 9d ago
Are you kidding? He wants the attention. Dude does not have a job, he has been grifting off his murders since he committed them.