The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: What Will Be the Outcome?

That boy, armed with an "oozie" came looking for trouble. You don't walk around carrying that type of weapon "just because". He was feeling his oats. There's a saying, two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe he was attacked because he was perceived as the threat he wound up being. It seems nobody involved in this acted with common sense. Well, I guess we shouldn't expect someone who'd just been released from the psych ward to do so. Since he was a sex offender, I can't feel sorry for him either.

But I digress. That boy had no business coming to the event with an assault rifle....period. As my cousin used to say.."Don't start no rootin' and tootin'...won't be no cuttin' and shootin". Would he have been approached and hit if he was not carrying the rifle? He certainly wouldn't have been able to shoot someone without it. He told two lies about why he was there. Then he's in the stand shedding those crocodile tears...PUH-Leeze!! Maybe if he gets off he should take acting lessons. If he does get off with a slap on the wrist, I will be further disgusted with our justice system! Plus I think a light sentence will send the wrong message to others who think it's okay to go out, get assault weapons and shoot people.
 

Last edited:
Irwin said:
AK-47s are what terrorists and African tribes often use. They're cheap and reliable, but not very accurate.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that you have been shot at by someone holding an AK-47. I have seen it up close and personal and believe me, they are deadly accurate. My first confirmed kill was a sniper who killed the point man, then the medic before I was able to pin point her. Yes, it was a female and she was deadly with that AK. :( Now, I have to live with the thoughts of her family and what they must feel. :cry:
 
Butterfly said:
Yeah, but (a) he wasn't on duty at the scene and (b) he was carrying concealed on an expired permit.
Click to expand...

Distinctions without differences? Differences without distinctions? I forget how it goes. Anyway, it's up to the jury now.
 

Irwin said:
AKs are Russian rifles. What Rittenhouse has is an AR-15 style rifle, which is the civilian version of an M-16 — the American automatic military rifle, or one of them, anyway. AK-47s are what terrorists and African tribes often use. They're cheap and reliable, but not very accurate.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.

He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession. jmo
 
dobielvr said:
Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.

He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession. jmo
Click to expand...

Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice. The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge. Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.
 
JimBob1952 said:
Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice. The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge. Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.
Click to expand...
Is it a legal or illegal weapon?

Thank you.
 
win231 said:
You are (of course) mistaken once again. Mr. Grosskruetz was armed with a Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse. And at that close range, it doesn't matter what type of gun or what caliber; it's whomever fires first.
And Grosskruetz was carrying a gun illegally, so....if Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, so was Grosskruetz.
Click to expand...
Of course, it must be me that's mistaken- since you change the direction of the conversation with every reply. :rolleyes:
 
dobielvr said:
Is it a legal or illegal weapon?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It's murky. It's apparently legal for 17 year olds to have possession of a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin, but the intent of the law might be to allow them to hunt with their parents. At any rate, the judge threw out the possession charge in this case. Not that this particular judge seems like a font of wisdom on any matter.
 
dobielvr said:
Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.

He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession. jmo
Click to expand...
But what he was doing was perfectly legal. Dozens of people were walking around with AR-style rifles. Rosenbaum just went after what he thought was the smallest and weakest member of the herd, and he might have done so in hopes of being shot and killed. He had attempted suicide before and suffered from depression I believe, and he was going around telling men carrying AR-style rifles to "SHOOT ME!!" He got his wish.
 
JimBob1952 said:
It's murky. It's apparently legal for 17 year olds to have possession of a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin, but the intent of the law might be to allow them to hunt with their parents. At any rate, the judge threw out the possession charge in this case. Not that this particular judge seems like a font of wisdom on any matter.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding the judge threw it out mainly because Dominick Black bought and owns the AR-15. It was a straw purchase for Rittenhouse. Black will be tried in court for that offense after this trial is over.
 
hollydolly said:
Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death ?.. I've commited no crime .. I haven't stabbed you, nor touched you with an offensive weapon... I've simply held a knife in your direction.. how would that give you the right to kill me ? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...
Click to expand...
If you happen to point a knife at a police officer, there is a positive chance you will be shot. Depending on the situation, officers are justified shooting you if you are brandishing a knife 20 feet away.

Knives are definitely considered deadly weapons --

According to the FBI, across the United States in 2018, there were: 1,515 deaths by knives or cutting instruments, 443 people were killed with hammers/clubs/other blunt objects, 672 people were killed from fists/feet/’personal weapons’ compared to the 297 killed by (any) rifles.
The number of people killed by rifles declined from 2017 to 2018. In 2017, 400 people were killed by rifles and nearly four times as many people were stabbed to death than killed with rifles.
 
Last edited:
Should the kid have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? Also a big no. Were the rioters ( or perhaps you consider them mostly peaceful protesters) trying to beat the life outta that kid? Yes. Yes they were. One admitted to threatening Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him. There was a whole lotta stupid going on that night, but what happened was clearly self defense. And if he gets off, as I hope he does, there will be riots, and looting, and burning, and a whole lot more of stupid.
 
CarolfromTX said:
Should the kid have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? Also a big no. Were the rioters ( or perhaps you consider them mostly peaceful protesters) trying to beat the life outta that kid? Yes. Yes they were. One admitted to threatening Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him. There was a whole lotta stupid going on that night, but what happened was clearly self defense. And if he gets off, as I hope he does, there will be riots, and looting, and burning, and a whole lot more of stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
hollydolly said:
Actually tbh.. I have to say that watching this trial , I was actually getting annoyed at the mother who sat their blubbing in the court at her 'poor boy being told off'...... I kept saying , if she'd raised him properly or at least kept an eye on what and who he was involved in, she might not be sitting there knowing her 'baby' was a killer
Click to expand...

And if the parents of the rioters had raised them properly, we wouldn’t be talking about this at all. But they didn’t, and she didn’t, and 17 year old kids do stupid things. He defended himself. If the mob had succeeded in beating him to death, do you think they’d be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it.
 
CarolfromTX said:
And if the parents of the rioters had raised them properly, we wouldn’t be talking about this at all. But they didn’t, and she didn’t, and 17 year old kids do stupid things. He defended himself. If the mob had succeeded in beating him to death, do you think they’d be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...
The way things have become I doubt it too.
 
JimBob1952 said:
Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice. The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge. Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.
Click to expand...
Wasn't illegal for a 17 year old to own or have?
 
Even if a person was so called raised "improperly" that does not mean they are predisposed to attend riots with a rifle. The same could be said of a teenager that smokes or uses drugs or drinks alcohol that the parents did not raise him properly?

Even if raised so called "properly" does that mean they will turn out to be a productive member of society all their life?
 
HarryHawk said:
If you happen to point a knife at a police officer, there is a positive chance you will be shot. Depending on the situation, officers are justified shooting you if you are brandishing a knife 20 feet away.
Click to expand...
Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...
 
hollydolly said:
Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...
Click to expand...
That is interesting. In the U.S., every citizen has the right to defend oneself. You do not have to wait until an attacker shoots, stabs, clubs, chokes, etc before you respond. If you use deadly force to defend yourself, you will most likely be tried, just like the case we are discussion. It is not a foregone conclusion that you will be found guilty, just like the case we are discussing.
 
Last edited:
I agree that we all have the right to defend ourselves.

I also believe that we should not insert ourselves into dangerous situations that are none of our business.

That applies to many of the people involved in this tragic situation.

“There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself.” - P. J. O’Rourke
 
If we're going to talk about how these people were raised, I can't resist bringing up fathers, or the lack thereof.
As far as I can tell neither Rittenhouse nor Rosenbaum had his father in the home. A father might have taught Rittenhouse how to be manly without carrying a big gun and a father would have been there to protect Rosenbaum from the sexual abuse he suffered as a child and helped offset the trauma of his mother being sent to prison when he was thirteen. 85% of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, 90% of homeless come from fatherless homes -- we really need to bring back fathers.
 
hollydolly said:
Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...
Click to expand...
The mob was beating the tar out of him. Surely that deserved a response. Like I said, whole lotta stupid going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top