Current Events > IYO is Kyle Rittenhouse guilty of murder?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not how you think the trial will go, but what do you think

---

Looking back his moves were out of a movie, was he professional trained?

---

I dont think he is guilty of murder, since it seems like a clear case of self defense.

I do think it would be fair to get him on illegally having the weapon, when he was underage.

I doubt he'll get convicted of murder, but he should definitely be convicted on the weapons charge.

---

Im surprised he didnt just start spraying

---

CableZL posted...

I doubt he'll get convicted of murder, but he should definitely be convicted on the weapons charge.

---

CableZL posted...

I doubt he'll get convicted of murder, but he should definitely be convicted on the weapons charge.

---

isn't it a pretty clear cut case of self-defense, with those videos out in the open now?

CableZL posted...

I doubt he'll get convicted of murder, but he should definitely be convicted on the weapons charge.

This. The person who gave him the gun should have been charged and that group participated in the riot.

---

Kaiganeer posted...

isn't it a pretty clear cut case of self-defense, with those videos out in the open now?

You overestimate the reasoning abilities of culture warriors.

---

Morally, yes.

Legally, no.

---

I really need to take some time and find out all the info on this case.

---

Oh my God, 53.5% no. Get off it. You bring a gun to a fight and shoot someone that makes you guilty of murder.

Kaiganeer posted...

isn't it a pretty clear cut case of self-defense, with those videos out in the open now?

I'd say the one that's the most questionable is the guy he shot, then shot 3 more times when he was on the ground.

---

no idea if he is or not, what i do know is he's no hero and hope either way he fucks right off and isn't held up as some kind of poster boy.

---

CableZL posted...

I'd say the one that's the most questionable is the guy he shot, then shot 3 more times when he was on the ground.

It's amazing that you people can lie like this. Rittenhouse did not shoot Rosenbaum three times while he was on the ground. He shot him four times in under a second as he lunged for him. He did not shoot him and then shoot him more. You can literally watch the video.

---

I mean, he's clearly guilty of murder. Strictly speaking, nobody is debating that he killed those people.

The actual question should be "is what Kyle did defensible?" which I think is a much stronger argument in his favour. I could see a reasonable argument for like, 2nd or 3rd degree murder, but not what he's been charged with.

Being as generous as possible to Kyle, he still had a gun he shouldn't legally have, and went to a protest with the express intention of stirring ****. That at best, still makes him a POS. You shouldn't go to prison for being a POS though.

The problem is that this probably never should've gone to court to begin with - its obvious Kyle killed people and obvious it was likely self-defence - so Kyle should gotten a slap on the wrist and like, community service or something. But instead its been blown up into more culture war BS where the prosecution is terrible, the judge is terrible, and the only real conclusion anyone is going to take from this is that the white supremacist looking for an excuse to hurt people will be perfectly fine so long as they don't hit first. Its a very bad conclusion to be making so public.

The real issue isn't whether Kyle killed someone or not, its that under testimony, he thinks he did nothing wrong. And that's scary, since he is also responsible for people dying for little reason beyond high tensions and a political disagreement.

ThePrinceFish posted...

It's amazing that you people can lie like this. Rittenhouse did not shoot Rosenbaum three times while he was on the ground. He shot him four times in under a second as he lunged for him. He did not shoot him and then shoot him more. You can literally watch the video.

The 1st shot happened as Rosenbaum was lunging. They weren't 4 shots in quick succession. There was one shot, then 3 more shots afterward. Rosenbaum fell after he got hit with the 1st one.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

I mean, he's clearly guilty of murder. Strictly speaking, nobody is debating that he killed those people.

The actual question should be "is what Kyle did defensible?" which I think is a much stronger argument in his favour. I could see a reasonable argument for like, 2nd or 3rd degree murder, but not what he's been charged with.

Being as generous as possible to Kyle, he still had a gun he shouldn't legally have, and went to a protest with the express intention of stirring ****. That at best, still makes him a POS. You shouldn't go to prison for being a POS though.

The problem is that this probably never should've gone to court to begin with - its obvious Kyle killed people and obvious it was likely self-defence - so Kyle should gotten a slap on the wrist and like, community service or something. But instead its been blown up into more culture war BS where the prosecution is terrible, the judge is terrible, and the only real conclusion anyone is going to take from this is that the white supremacist looking for an excuse to hurt people will be perfectly fine so long as they don't hit first. Its a very bad conclusion to be making so public.

The real issue isn't whether Kyle killed someone or not, its that under testimony, he thinks he did nothing wrong. And that's scary, since he is also responsible for people dying for little reason beyond high tensions and a political disagreement.

if you were in his shoes, with you admit you were wrong? I don't think your lawyers would tell you to say you were. That would be admission of guilt. And considering the footage showed him shoot in self defense, why would he admit he was wrong?

---

Proto_Spark posted...

I mean, he's clearly guilty of murder. Strictly speaking, nobody is debating that he killed those people.

CableZL posted...

I'd say the one that's the most questionable is the guy he shot, then shot 3 more times when he was on the ground.

Lol this is why I love Gamefaqs.

---

Arcanine2009 posted...

if you were in his shoes, with you admit you were wrong? I don't think your lawyers would tell you to say you were. That would be admission of guilt. And considering the footage showed him shoot in self defense, why would he admit he was wrong?

Its not an admission of guilt to say he shot people and is remorseful. He made a tough choice in a stressful condition, and that's understandable.

I'm saying he should have remorse for killing someone, not that he should admit guilt.

CableZL posted...

The 1st shot happened as Rosenbaum was lunging. They weren't 4 shots in quick succession. There was one shot, then 3 more shots afterward. Rosenbaum fell after he got hit with the 1st one.

Source?

NeoShadowhen posted...

Source?

I was watching the video of the trial yesterday when they were discussing that part.

I still doubt he'll be found guilty of murder, but if any of them are the least bit questionable, it's that one.

---

It was self defense.

This time.

Something tells me we will hear the name Kyle Rittenhoise again.

---

CableZL posted...

I was watching the video of the trial yesterday when they were discussing that part.

I still doubt he'll be found guilty of murder, but if any of them are the least bit questionable, it's that one.

The only testimony Ive heard like what you said was that the four shots occurred in under one second, and the third and fourth shot occurred at an angle that indicated that rosenbaum was either falling forward or lunging.

I voted not informed enough but I'm leaning towards no. The more interesting aspect of the trial is how grossly incompetent the prosecutor seems.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

I mean, he's clearly guilty of murder. Strictly speaking, nobody is debating that he killed those people.

The actual question should be "is what Kyle did defensible?" which I think is a much stronger argument in his favour. I could see a reasonable argument for like, 2nd or 3rd degree murder, but not what he's been charged with.

Being as generous as possible to Kyle, he still had a gun he shouldn't legally have, and went to a protest with the express intention of stirring ****. That at best, still makes him a POS. You shouldn't go to prison for being a POS though.

The problem is that this probably never should've gone to court to begin with - its obvious Kyle killed people and obvious it was likely self-defence - so Kyle should gotten a slap on the wrist and like, community service or something. But instead its been blown up into more culture war BS where the prosecution is terrible, the judge is terrible, and the only real conclusion anyone is going to take from this is that the white supremacist looking for an excuse to hurt people will be perfectly fine so long as they don't hit first. Its a very bad conclusion to be making so public.

The real issue isn't whether Kyle killed someone or not, its that under testimony, he thinks he did nothing wrong. And that's scary, since he is also responsible for people dying for little reason beyond high tensions and a political disagreement.

I dont think you understand what murder is.

Murder is specifically the unlawful killing of a human being. Everyone knows Rittenhouse killed those two men, but if he is found guilty due to self defense, then he didn't commit murder, by definition.

VitalGetPrank posted...

I voted not informed enough but I'm leaning towards no. The more interesting aspect of the trial is how grossly incompetent the prosecutor seems.

Definitely the big idea. It seems like the prosecutor is terrible, the judge is biased, the entire thing is a complete ****show and probably never should've gone to trial if not for it being used as a pedestal for Culture War BS.

Do I think he's guilty? Yes for whatever the law is for someone purposely trying to start a violent altercation. He went there hoping for a reason to use his gun so he could claim self defense.

Do I think America's terrible justice system will convict him? Ask all the innocent people in jail what they think about that one.

Our justice system bends over backwards to protect Rittenhouse types. Not even watching the trial I know whatever he's being charged with, it's something that the law will allow him to walk Scott free despite his clear intentions beings there.

---

I haven't deep dived into anything recent, but everything I've seen makes it seem to be self-defense. It doesn't mean he's not a piece of shit though.

The 3rd guy he shot, Rittenhouse demonstrated incredible gun discipline by lowering his gun when the 3rd victim approached him with his hands up. But then the 3rd victim pulled out his gun, which triggered the reaction from Rittenhouse.

I have respect for the kid from that move. He's not malicious, and this is on top of all the good deeds he was doing that night.

---

He's an idiot who should have never been there that night and his mom is a fucking moron who needs to have her head examined, but anyone paying attention and didn't head into this with their mind made up will come to the conclusion that it wasn't murder.

AssultTank posted...

Frankly, anyone who thinks he is guilty of murder hasn't been watching the trial with an open mind. They made up their mind already and no evidence will convince them otherwise.

---

Why does gamefaqs hate self-defense so much?

dioxxys posted...

Why does gamefaqs hate self-defense so much?

Try overturning a moderation and you get a clearer picture of the joint

---

Honestly, I'd rather see all of the adults that let him go there/supplied him with the weapon behind bars than him. He should definitely get hit with a weapon charge (he wont), but the adults in his life are absolute fucking lunatics for letting him go there in the first place, let alone dropping him off alone and with a gun.

---

@EndOfDiscOne

How about a poll refined by whether your state allows open carry? Kenosha is a 31 minute drive from Antioch and Wisconsin allows open carry. Will people vote the same regardless of their personal safety? I think not.

---

What I dont understand is how you travel to a violent situation with your gun and people argue self defense when you shoot said gun.

If it was a peaceful protest then why bring a gun and then call self defense when using said gun? If Kyle was casually walking through and felt attacked then Id buy self defense.

---

Sad_Face posted...

The 3rd guy he shot, Rittenhouse demonstrated incredible gun discipline by lowering his gun when the 3rd victim approached him with his hands up. But then the 3rd victim pulled out his gun, which triggered the reaction from Rittenhouse.

I have respect for the kid from that move. He's not malicious, and this is on top of all the good deeds he was doing that night.

What is this stupid shit?

---

NatsuSama posted...

Do I think he's guilty? Yes for whatever the law is for someone purposely trying to start a violent altercation. He went there hoping for a reason to use his gun so he could claim self defense.

Do I think America's terrible justice system will convict him? Ask all the innocent people in jail what they think about that one.

Our justice system bends over backwards to protect Rittenhouse types. Not even watching the trial I know whatever he's being charged with, it's something that the law will allow him to walk Scott free despite his clear intentions beings there.

I still can't see how none of the people saying dumb shit like this, take into account how dangerous the linking of intent is here. As if the default assumption for anybody who has a gun is being there to kill, and not just having it in case they need it for defense or to deter bad actors.

Even if all actions that night were completely counter to someone looking to start shit, it's just assumed that he had an intent to kill, which he didn't bother with till he was completely alone and walking towards a fire hours after he had arrived.

He knew some guy was hiding behind the cars and was gonna try to chase him into a corner, which he knew was gonna be the perfect excuse to shoot someone. He even egged him on by screaming "friendly".

The justice system is not bending over shit. Even if you changed the judge and prosecution, this is the equivalent of trying to squeeze water out of a dry sponge. There's still nothing there.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Lol, watching with an open mind? Some of these people haven't confirmed anything past what they heard last year. Just reading up on the actual events would be a big start.

---

Honestly I don't see it. There's not enough evidence to say 100% without a shadow of a doubt. It looked like self defense to me.

---

idc, at this point I'm sick of the "guilty in the court of public opinion" mentality that leads to more riots when the mob doesn't get what they want

What I want to know is how do you fire 4 shots in rapid succession and anyone calls it self defense.

---

I think negligent homicide applies, I'm not sure if that is considered murder.

---

--Zero- posted...

If it was a peaceful protest then why bring a gun

lmao

Manslaughter at the very least.

---

It has recently come to my attention that Kyle plays Call of Duty. I rest my case.

---

Nope

---

Innocent people dont take a gun to a riot to incite people and create a scenario where you are legally allowed to kill someone and then celebrate it afterwards