Kyle Rittenhouse

[sawtooth]

Rittenhouse is a scumbag who went looking for trouble and was tooled up. That isn't in question.

However the actual incident that led to the deaths, he acted in self defence. He would most likely been killed as he was chased and attacked by violent protestors, one of whom was also armed with a gun. Those that died weren't victims, just scumbags from another side of the same coin as Rittenhouse. They were on the streets to cause carnage and attack anyone who didn't share their views.

The whole debacle is an example of why the UK should distance itself from the US and not let certain elements push their agenda. Everyone has the right in the US to bear arms and defend themselves, he did that, hence why he was found not guilty.

"He would most likely been killed as he was chased and attacked by violent protestors"

You can't blow people away based on a massive assumption like that.

Rosenbaum was unarmed for starters, and he still had to get the gun of Rittenhouse and turn it on him. Not a given at all. And that's all conjecture, Rosenbaum may just have wanted to disarm him.

 

[bobmac]

He took an assault rifle into a volatile situation, which he's not allowed to do.

 

[Foxholer]

He took an assault rifle into a volatile situation, which he's not allowed to do.

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution actually specifically allows him to do so!

 

[Tashyboy]

Open question, does “ the right to bear arms” mean that you can actually kill someone and get away with it/ found not guilty. I know it’s a different country but in the UK you can kill someone, if it’s not murder its manslaughter. is that not the case in the USA ?

 

[Foxholer]

Open question, does “ the right to bear arms” mean that you can actually kill someone and get away with it/ found not guilty. I know it’s a different country but in the UK you can kill someone, if it’s not murder its manslaughter. is that not the case in the USA ?

Check out what the defense was....Self Defense!

 

[Dando]

Open question, does “ the right to bear arms” mean that you can actually kill someone and get away with it/ found not guilty. I know it’s a different country but in the UK you can kill someone, if it’s not murder its manslaughter. is that not the case in the USA ?

The “right to bear arms” in the constitution is only against the government

 

[Foxholer]

The “right to bear arms” in the constitution is only against the government

I don't believe that's the case.
Can you identify any rulings that support your statement?

 

[Ethan]

A black man would not have been convicted of the same crime. Because he would have been shot by cops who were happy to wave at Rittenhouse.

The claim of self-defence is laughable. He threatens people, they respond, so he is able to shoot them in self-defence. Utterly ridiculous.

I used to travel to the US a lot, averaging around 6 times a year for 20 years, mostly to the coasts, but sometimes to places in the middle. We often think Americans are like us because they speak a similar language, but they really aren't.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I don't know the full facts( nor does anyone else here). But it seems there are two scenarios being here suggested.
Agreed there was a riot and mayhem on the streets in which the deceased guys were present?
If this was occurring somewhere some distance from Rittenhiuse's home/ family or business, and he went along there tooled up, then that is not on and should be ( in this country it is) a criminal act, certainly it is morally.
You are looking for trouble, yes?
However, if all hell is breaking out outside your house and business premises and you perceive danger to your family or business, then in USA I believe you are entitled to go and protect those things and be armed.if you are then attacked.......
It is morally right to defend yourself and property, if endangered.
Those who don't like firearms, how would you prefer to go out and defend your home etc?
As I say, different circumstances?
Who knows what they were.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

He travelled around 20 miles from his home to the location of the shooting. Whatever he was 'defending', it was not his home.

A 17yr old, nothing to do with law enforcement, patrolling streets with a rifle ?. In a supposedly first world country? Wrong on a host of levels.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

He travelled around 20 miles from his home to the location of the shooting. Whatever he was 'defending', it was not his home.

A 17yr old, nothing to do with law enforcement, patrolling streets with a rifle ?. In a supposedly first world country? Wrong on a host of levels.

That’ll be the rifle that he was too young to buy, so he got his friend to buy it on his behalf, the friend who is now due to appear in court and could face up to 25yrs in jail for buying it.

And where did he get the money from? Apparently he used the furlough grant he’d received off the US Government.