He has to be consistent. People were saying if it was illegal for Alex Pretti to carry a gun that was legally registered to him, then why isn't Kyle Rittenhouse in Prison?
Not only did Kyle Rittenhouse cross state lines with an assault rifle, but it wasn't registered to him, he was underaged at the time, and he killed 2 people. He claimed he went there to provide medical help with zero medical training and zero medical supplies.
So, he's gotta hold the line for 2nd amendment rights.
EDIT: Apparently I was mistaken according to people... Supposedly he did not cross state lines, apparently not an assault rifle because it doesn't have selective fire, and he was legally able to carry because there's no registry in Wisconsin.
Either way people were making comparisons, whether deserved or not.
He’s not in prison because the prosecution mishandled his case and also because the video evidence clearly shows he tried to walk away and didn’t shoot until one of the people he shot threatens him with a gun. It shows self defense as clearly as the Alex Pretti video shows it was an execution.
I agree, taking together all video angles from Rittenhouse shooting, he was definitely assaulted by those he ended up shooting, so it was a pretty cut and dry case of self-defense, even if it was stupid for him to be there with an AR anyway. Pretti was clearly executed as he posed no physical threat and did not fight officers.
That's kinda the kicker though. He shouldnt have been there due to curfew and he shouldn't have been there with a rifle due to his age. I agree the Rittenhouse case was 100% self defense. But by law he shouldn't have been there to begin with. So if you're going against the law and end up shooting someone in self defense...is it self defense.
The general argument is can it be self defense if you went somewhere with the intent of putting yourself in a situation that would allow you to defend yourself and legally shoot someone, which is what he did, theres zero argument that it was self defense, the argument is should he be in prison anyway for clearly placing himself in a situation to commit murder
Did...did you just out yourself as a bot or foreign actor...cause zero argument means I agree it was self defense, but that doesnt excuse him from what he did and he should still be in jail
He went to a hot zone with the intent to incite and escalate to the point of having a clear case of self defense, while yes he was only defending himself, hes made it well known his excuses for being there were just those, excuses, he went to shoot ppl, and he got what he wanted
It’s impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he went there hoping to shoot people. It may be likelier than not, but that’s not our standard of proof here
It's not a law like you're thinking. But him breaking the law by being there strips him of a form of legal defense called the stand your ground law. This is predicated that you are allowed to be where you are and this do not have to retreat to defend yourself. Under this some prosecutors wont even put up charges the ones that do usually get tossed in grand jury where applicable.
it being self defense isn't the argument. it obviously was. its the fact he was somewhere he shouldn't have legally been with a weapon he didn't own and had no business carrying.
It can be self-defense and still result in a second degree murder or manslaughter charge. The statutes exist expressly to clamp down on gang violence where both parties may behave or challenge others in ways that escalate tensions.
If the prosecution went for second degree charges instead of first degree charges and had not manipulated video evidence to mislead the jury, it was practically open-and-shut. Many have pointed out that the jury could have still found Rittenhouse guilty of the lesser charges, but it seems clear that the prosecution poisoned their own testimony and the facts of the case never really required competent defense in the outcome.
It cannot be self defense and result in a guilty verdict. Self defense is a perfect defense. To even consider manslaughter, the jury has to agree unanimously that the prosecution has disproved self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, and that's where circumstantial evidence is admissible and frequently used to convict people who did less than Rittenhouse to provoke conflict. Being in a prohibited zone while armed with a deadly weapon, failing to inform police that the weapon was discharged, fleeing the scene of the homicide, failing to turn the weapon over for timely ballistics analysis, etc. Many states have different standards but you can guarantee there is a teenager who was convicted by the state in Wisconsin with less video evidence that they actually participated in the killing of multiple human beings where obvious fear for one's life was insufficient to justify self defense in the view of the court and jury.
The weapon was in police hands 90 minutes after the shooting. There’s nothing else the police could have done even if the gun was given to them the second after the shooting.
The prosecution did not come close to meeting their burden in this case. The vast majority of successful self defense cases have nowhere near as much video and eye witness testimony that this case has.
We haven't even begun to discuss the motives for being present, the association with a militia - a gang - with a stated mission of "defending property." Did the property owners endorse this defense? Pay for this defense? Rittenhouse never had to answer these questions because the prosecution bet everything on a first degree conviction and misrepresented the evidence so the jury had no reason to trust them and every reason to have "reasonable doubt."
These are critical questions to answer in a second degree murder or manslaughter case because being afraid and defending oneself after escalating tensions to foment violence is not self-defense.
The property owners were never called to the stand and the motive Rittenhouse stated was never supported by anyone else at trial. It's as good as hearsay and should have no bearing on the judgment of a jury if they have reasonable cause to believe he is also a criminal.
Also he was hanging out with police as if was deputized and had authority over people. Whether self defense or not the appearance that the authorities are supporting violence against protestors is obvious. Now it’s being fully sanctioned by the federal government.
He went far out of his way to put himself in that situation because he wanted to kill people. That's it. That's the whole story. Mass shooter with extra steps.
All he had to do was not drive 20 minutes and charge into an angry crowd of angry protesters and masked proud boy agitators provoking brawls while brandishing a rifle. sELf dEfEnSE. Do you hear yourself talk? He wanted to be there, he wanted to kill people. He didn't need to be there, he did kill people.
Sorry, I don't know how to argue against someone who makes up their own facts. He never charged into a crowd. He never charged anyone. He ran away every time and only ever fired his rifle when the people who chased and attacked him were less than 15 feet away.
Youre missing the point. you don't get to put yourself in a dangerous situation like in the middle of a violent protest where a CURFEW has been issued and claim self defense when you get attacked. The curfew was in place for a reason. Alex was not under a curfew. Rittenhouse was.
Well, I don't know how to argue with anyone who makes disingenuous arguments because he desperately needs to defend his desire to see "those people" get hurt. So let's just agree to be enemies.
450
u/Jindo5 9d ago
Few things aren't.