In a normal world, a kid murdering people with an assault rifle would spark a discussion about gun culture and mental health. Instead the best we get is a spokesman realizing their life was a waste.
In a normal world, a kid murdering people with an assault rifle would spark a discussion about gun culture and mental health. Instead the best we get is a spokesman realizing their life was a waste.
...or it was intentional that the district attorney never received those. At the time I sort of felt like the whole system in Wisconsin was behind Rittenhouse. He was a teen, guns, white, and he...
...or it was intentional that the district attorney never received those. At the time I sort of felt like the whole system in Wisconsin was behind Rittenhouse. He was a teen, guns, white, and he killed a libURal.
My understanding is that the police and the DA had access to Rittenhouse’s phone. They should’ve been able to see the messages in question. And DAs don’t like losing cases.
My understanding is that the police and the DA had access to Rittenhouse’s phone. They should’ve been able to see the messages in question. And DAs don’t like losing cases.
I don't think it matters much considering the line before it insinuates they would shoot a home invader. Which, well, you'd see a hundred people tweet something like that. Thus it seems easily...
Others read: “I wish they would come into my house.”
“I will fucking murder them.”
I don't think it matters much considering the line before it insinuates they would shoot a home invader. Which, well, you'd see a hundred people tweet something like that.
I'd think it would matter some as it illustrates what his true intentions were. Normal people aren't wishing to have their home invaded. That he would wish for it to happen was just pretext for...
I'd think it would matter some as it illustrates what his true intentions were. Normal people aren't wishing to have their home invaded. That he would wish for it to happen was just pretext for what his true wish was, murder.
It's hard to say whether it's just internet tough guy or an actual hopeful attitude, but the sentiment of "I wish someone would invade my house/tresspass/look at me funny so I have an excuse to...
Normal people aren't wishing to have their home invaded
It's hard to say whether it's just internet tough guy or an actual hopeful attitude, but the sentiment of "I wish someone would invade my house/tresspass/look at me funny so I have an excuse to shoot them" shows up frighteningly often whenever people talk about guns and why they own them. Ostensibly, it's for self defence, but they're very nonchalant about wanting to take someone's life.
I agree that it's not an uncommon sentiment in some circumstances, but the big difference is the vast majority of those people don't actually end up in a situation where something like that...
It's hard to say whether it's just internet tough guy or an actual hopeful attitude, but the sentiment of "I wish someone would invade my house/tresspass/look at me funny so I have an excuse to shoot them" shows up frighteningly often whenever people talk about guns and why they own them. Ostensibly, it's for self defence, but they're very nonchalant about wanting to take someone's life.
I agree that it's not an uncommon sentiment in some circumstances, but the big difference is the vast majority of those people don't actually end up in a situation where something like that happens because they know better and don't go seeking out such a situation.
Sure, out of all of those cases there could be one here or there where that wish coincidentally comes true and they didn't actually seek it out and having that thought documented out there somewhere can come back on them. But that's a case to be decided, if a person really didn't go seeking it out then presumably they will not be found at fault, but in the case of Rittenhouse, his statements combined with the situation he is in leaves little room for doubt that it was not just an unfortunate coincidence he ended up in that circumstance.
My point being that this does not in any way illustrate what his intentions were, as it does not even fit the context laid down by the aforementioned quote.
it illustrates what his true intentions were
My point being that this does not in any way illustrate what his intentions were, as it does not even fit the context laid down by the aforementioned quote.
This is just not how proving these kinds of cases work. A lot of backseat lawyers want to prove conspiracy or something and they just don’t get why these texts are mostly useless.
This is just not how proving these kinds of cases work. A lot of backseat lawyers want to prove conspiracy or something and they just don’t get why these texts are mostly useless.
So first, I do recommend people watch legal eagles video on the trial: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI&pp=ygUXTGVnYWwgZWFnbGUgcml0dGVuaG91c2U= With that in mind, how do the texts change...
With that in mind, how do the texts change any of this?
There’s some possible scenario where Kyle 100% planned to kill people on that trip and incited it. Those texts are no where near enough to prove that. People say horrible and stupid shit all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re actually going to do it. The law very much recognizes that this is a thing and even taken completely out of context it’s not enough.
Hell let’s say person A is 100% on their way to murder person B. If person C jumps A and tries to rob them at gunpoint, A still legally has a right to self defense.
While an absurd situation, that’s arguably what the (inept and I’d say dangerously horrible) prosecution needs to fight against for at least two of the shootings.
As legal eagle kinda gets at, open carry and these awkward self defense laws lead to a MASSIVE cluster fuck of a situation where both parties can legally be carrying a weapon and then wind up in a situation where BOTH have a right to lethal self defense.
The point being “did Kyle go there with nefarious intent”, wasn’t something that was going to be relevant to the trial, because even if he DID, the defense argument was he was using his right to self defense. I’m almost positive plenty of other horrible things said by Kyle just before the shootings were well known at the time of the trial, and they were mostly not brought up or not admitted (that one is more complicated and I believe relates to the aforementioned “people saying dumb shit is not strong enough on its own” thing)
If the prosecution could have proven Kyle incited the violence, they would have. What they had was instead mostly hearsay followed by a clusterfuck of footage.
Further remember that since this is a murder 1 charge, it isn’t just “yeah he probably did it”. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. An extremely hard standard to overcome, and if they could have, texts like this would not have mattered much either way.
As a Canadian and white (I feel this is necessary to claim since Rittenhouse's story heavily involves black American politics and experiences), who followed the Rittenhouse story, I think the...
As a Canadian and white (I feel this is necessary to claim since Rittenhouse's story heavily involves black American politics and experiences), who followed the Rittenhouse story, I think the spokesman is being disingenuous.
From the start, it was very clear that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha looking for a fight. Part of how he ended up not being convicted is that the DA charged him with the highest offences possible for his situation. The spokesman could argue, that during the trial he felt that Rittenhouse felt genuine remorse and so continued being Rittenhouse's spokesman. However, this spokesman continued being involved with Rittenhouse post-trial. After the trial, Rittenhouse used his notoriety to be on conservative media outlets. That is when it cemented in me that Rittenhouse felt no remorse for his actions. If Rittenhouse distances himself from the killings in Kenosha, and minimized his media presence, I would not judge him so harshly. The fact that thos spokesman didn't distance himself and kept this view of Rittenhouse just killing in self defense, I think is false. This spokesman is coming to the conclusion that he needs to distance himself with Rittenhouse now, and is saying whatever needs to be said to be able to do that smoothly.
Edit: I feel like my late night writing is not as concise as it could be. So here is the points I was trying to hit:
Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.
The spokesman may have fallen for the narrative that it was self defense during the trial.
Rittenhouse's post-trial political involvements indicates a lack of remorse from Rittenhouse.
The spokesman staying with Rittenhouse for part of the post-trial period indicates that the spokesman did not fall for the self defense strategy during the trial (or should have clued in a lot sooner).
The spokesman condoning Rittenhouse now is a way for the spokesman to save face and distance himself from Rittenhouse as he feels it is best for him to put distance there now.
Yeah that's basically my take. There is more to the situation than is often reported, but even though with the evidence presented I think that Kyle should not have been found guilty, I still also...
Yeah that's basically my take.
There is more to the situation than is often reported, but even though with the evidence presented I think that Kyle should not have been found guilty, I still also 100% know he's a POS who was looking to start shit. There was a ton of bad reporting around the entire thing, and people really don't understand the law around things like this (or why they're the way they are, for better or worse), but the BEST opinion you could've had of Kyle was someone who fucked around and found out realllllly quick just how awful that can be, and then decided to dive deeper down the alt right nonsense rabbit hole anyways.
The only caveat I can give him is that yeah, it's not like the rest of the world would be kind or wiling to accept him, but even still, the behavior pretty clearly was one of someone who doesn't respect the PILE of insane shit they just avoided by a TON of luck.
And they failed to prove that. I’m all for better laws to prevent this kind of shit, but as it stands he is innocent of the charges brought. Had the DA been less of a showboat they would’ve been...
And they failed to prove that. I’m all for better laws to prevent this kind of shit, but as it stands he is innocent of the charges brought.
Had the DA been less of a showboat they would’ve been ripped to pieces for not throwing the book at him on an “easy” case, but he’d also be in jail.
I am pleased every time a showboating DA fumbles a slam dunk. The truly heinous who walk free are a worthwhile trade for the egg on the face of the state monopoly on violence.
I am pleased every time a showboating DA fumbles a slam dunk. The truly heinous who walk free are a worthwhile trade for the egg on the face of the state monopoly on violence.
The worst example of the bad reporting was the fixation with those heckin’ state lines. As if it would’ve been any less deranged to drive 6+ hours south from Lake Superior all while remaining in...
The worst example of the bad reporting was the fixation with those heckin’ state lines. As if it would’ve been any less deranged to drive 6+ hours south from Lake Superior all while remaining in the same state.
I think the focus on that was to show that his presence there from the start was already a felony. However, the DA did not charge him with that and instead went for much bugher charges (that ended...
I think the focus on that was to show that his presence there from the start was already a felony. However, the DA did not charge him with that and instead went for much bugher charges (that ended up failing).
The fixation was because early reporting claimed he brought a weapon across state lines, which would’ve been a slam dunk federal conviction. Turns out he did not (he was provided one illegally...
The fixation was because early reporting claimed he brought a weapon across state lines, which would’ve been a slam dunk federal conviction.
Turns out he did not (he was provided one illegally after arriving) but the story was already out and the media absolutely inflamed it by still making sure “state lines” was in every headline.
This is also part of why the DA might have felt pressured to overcharge so as not to get ripped apart in the media.
I do agree that the charges laid against him he should not have been found guilty. If you also look at the moment of the shooting, there is a valid case of self defense. However, if you look at...
I do agree that the charges laid against him he should not have been found guilty. If you also look at the moment of the shooting, there is a valid case of self defense. However, if you look at the whole night, Rittenhouse did put him in a situation that he could have completely avoided, but instead went there looking for a fight. Also, his presence probably escalated the violence and there was no attempt at deescalation.
Rittenhouse continuing to appear in the media is just low intelligence on his part. If I was in his situation I would stay out of the public view, change my name, maybe change my look, move to...
Rittenhouse continuing to appear in the media is just low intelligence on his part.
If I was in his situation I would stay out of the public view, change my name, maybe change my look, move to Canada or the other side of the country, and go to school for a field where I could spend the rest of my life helping people.
Different things, but kind of related. To be fair, I wouldn't expect someone that age to think about that and it is abundantly clear the adults in his life are/were not very smart. They...
Different things, but kind of related.
To be fair, I wouldn't expect someone that age to think about that and it is abundantly clear the adults in his life are/were not very smart. They aren't/weren't good people either.
A former spokesperson for Kyle Rittenhouse says he became disillusioned with his ex-client after learning that he had sent text messages pledging to “fucking murder” shoplifters outside a pharmacy before later shooting two people to death during racial justice protests in Wisconsin in 2020
I saw an article the other day on long forgotten John Lee Malvo. Like Rittenhouse, Malvo had a gun and went hunting people as a teenager. Malvo is in prison for life. No MAGA back when he murdered...
I saw an article the other day on long forgotten John Lee Malvo.
Like Rittenhouse, Malvo had a gun and went hunting people as a teenager.
Malvo is in prison for life.
No MAGA back when he murdered his victims and Malvo is black.
Uhhh for those that don’t recognize the name, Malvo was the DC Sniper So yeah, hard to make a case for self defense when you’re picking people off out of the trunk of your car at huge ranges. This...
Uhhh for those that don’t recognize the name, Malvo was the DC Sniper
So yeah, hard to make a case for self defense when you’re picking people off out of the trunk of your car at huge ranges.
This is so far from comparable that making it just about MAGA and race is absurd
Two teenagers, badly influenced by bad adults, killing people for fun. One white and a maga, free. One black, in prison for life.
A former spokesperson for Kyle Rittenhouse says he became disillusioned with his ex-client after learning that he had sent text messages pledging to “fucking murder” shoplifters outside a pharmacy before later shooting two people to death during racial justice protests in Wisconsin in 2020.
Two teenagers, badly influenced by bad adults, killing people for fun.
One white and a maga, free. One black, in prison for life.
The context is vastly different though. Rittenhouse did this in one night, at a close range, in basically one location. Malvo and Muhammad did this over weeks, at longer range, over a metropolitan...
The context is vastly different though. Rittenhouse did this in one night, at a close range, in basically one location. Malvo and Muhammad did this over weeks, at longer range, over a metropolitan area. I was in elementary school in Northern Virginia at the time. Recess was being held inside, gas stations had tarps for cover and Guardian Angels to pump your gas (I remember bringing donuts to a couple of them), and every other white van was being pulled over. People feared being randomly shot by the DC snipers. They generally don’t/didn’t fear being “Rittenhoused”.
One with a witness in the stand who said they pointed a weapon at them, one shooting people from the trunk of their car who weren’t armed. Your zealousness does you nor your position no favors.
One with a witness in the stand who said they pointed a weapon at them, one shooting people from the trunk of their car who weren’t armed.
Your zealousness does you nor your position no favors.
In a normal world, a kid murdering people with an assault rifle would spark a discussion about gun culture and mental health. Instead the best we get is a spokesman realizing their life was a waste.
That’s an impressive screw-up that the district attorney couldn’t get his hands on these.
...or it was intentional that the district attorney never received those. At the time I sort of felt like the whole system in Wisconsin was behind Rittenhouse. He was a teen, guns, white, and he killed a libURal.
My understanding is that the police and the DA had access to Rittenhouse’s phone. They should’ve been able to see the messages in question. And DAs don’t like losing cases.
I don't think it matters much considering the line before it insinuates they would shoot a home invader. Which, well, you'd see a hundred people tweet something like that.
Thus it seems easily dismissible.
I'd think it would matter some as it illustrates what his true intentions were. Normal people aren't wishing to have their home invaded. That he would wish for it to happen was just pretext for what his true wish was, murder.
It's hard to say whether it's just internet tough guy or an actual hopeful attitude, but the sentiment of "I wish someone would invade my house/tresspass/look at me funny so I have an excuse to shoot them" shows up frighteningly often whenever people talk about guns and why they own them. Ostensibly, it's for self defence, but they're very nonchalant about wanting to take someone's life.
I agree that it's not an uncommon sentiment in some circumstances, but the big difference is the vast majority of those people don't actually end up in a situation where something like that happens because they know better and don't go seeking out such a situation.
Sure, out of all of those cases there could be one here or there where that wish coincidentally comes true and they didn't actually seek it out and having that thought documented out there somewhere can come back on them. But that's a case to be decided, if a person really didn't go seeking it out then presumably they will not be found at fault, but in the case of Rittenhouse, his statements combined with the situation he is in leaves little room for doubt that it was not just an unfortunate coincidence he ended up in that circumstance.
My point being that this does not in any way illustrate what his intentions were, as it does not even fit the context laid down by the aforementioned quote.
This is just not how proving these kinds of cases work. A lot of backseat lawyers want to prove conspiracy or something and they just don’t get why these texts are mostly useless.
So how are they mostly useless and not completely useless?
So first, I do recommend people watch legal eagles video on the trial:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI&pp=ygUXTGVnYWwgZWFnbGUgcml0dGVuaG91c2U=
With that in mind, how do the texts change any of this?
There’s some possible scenario where Kyle 100% planned to kill people on that trip and incited it. Those texts are no where near enough to prove that. People say horrible and stupid shit all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re actually going to do it. The law very much recognizes that this is a thing and even taken completely out of context it’s not enough.
Hell let’s say person A is 100% on their way to murder person B. If person C jumps A and tries to rob them at gunpoint, A still legally has a right to self defense.
While an absurd situation, that’s arguably what the (inept and I’d say dangerously horrible) prosecution needs to fight against for at least two of the shootings.
As legal eagle kinda gets at, open carry and these awkward self defense laws lead to a MASSIVE cluster fuck of a situation where both parties can legally be carrying a weapon and then wind up in a situation where BOTH have a right to lethal self defense.
The point being “did Kyle go there with nefarious intent”, wasn’t something that was going to be relevant to the trial, because even if he DID, the defense argument was he was using his right to self defense. I’m almost positive plenty of other horrible things said by Kyle just before the shootings were well known at the time of the trial, and they were mostly not brought up or not admitted (that one is more complicated and I believe relates to the aforementioned “people saying dumb shit is not strong enough on its own” thing)
If the prosecution could have proven Kyle incited the violence, they would have. What they had was instead mostly hearsay followed by a clusterfuck of footage.
Further remember that since this is a murder 1 charge, it isn’t just “yeah he probably did it”. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. An extremely hard standard to overcome, and if they could have, texts like this would not have mattered much either way.
As a Canadian and white (I feel this is necessary to claim since Rittenhouse's story heavily involves black American politics and experiences), who followed the Rittenhouse story, I think the spokesman is being disingenuous.
From the start, it was very clear that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha looking for a fight. Part of how he ended up not being convicted is that the DA charged him with the highest offences possible for his situation. The spokesman could argue, that during the trial he felt that Rittenhouse felt genuine remorse and so continued being Rittenhouse's spokesman. However, this spokesman continued being involved with Rittenhouse post-trial. After the trial, Rittenhouse used his notoriety to be on conservative media outlets. That is when it cemented in me that Rittenhouse felt no remorse for his actions. If Rittenhouse distances himself from the killings in Kenosha, and minimized his media presence, I would not judge him so harshly. The fact that thos spokesman didn't distance himself and kept this view of Rittenhouse just killing in self defense, I think is false. This spokesman is coming to the conclusion that he needs to distance himself with Rittenhouse now, and is saying whatever needs to be said to be able to do that smoothly.
Edit: I feel like my late night writing is not as concise as it could be. So here is the points I was trying to hit:
Yeah that's basically my take.
There is more to the situation than is often reported, but even though with the evidence presented I think that Kyle should not have been found guilty, I still also 100% know he's a POS who was looking to start shit. There was a ton of bad reporting around the entire thing, and people really don't understand the law around things like this (or why they're the way they are, for better or worse), but the BEST opinion you could've had of Kyle was someone who fucked around and found out realllllly quick just how awful that can be, and then decided to dive deeper down the alt right nonsense rabbit hole anyways.
The only caveat I can give him is that yeah, it's not like the rest of the world would be kind or wiling to accept him, but even still, the behavior pretty clearly was one of someone who doesn't respect the PILE of insane shit they just avoided by a TON of luck.
He went hunting people. He belongs in prison.
And they failed to prove that. I’m all for better laws to prevent this kind of shit, but as it stands he is innocent of the charges brought.
Had the DA been less of a showboat they would’ve been ripped to pieces for not throwing the book at him on an “easy” case, but he’d also be in jail.
I am pleased every time a showboating DA fumbles a slam dunk. The truly heinous who walk free are a worthwhile trade for the egg on the face of the state monopoly on violence.
The worst example of the bad reporting was the fixation with those heckin’ state lines. As if it would’ve been any less deranged to drive 6+ hours south from Lake Superior all while remaining in the same state.
I think the focus on that was to show that his presence there from the start was already a felony. However, the DA did not charge him with that and instead went for much bugher charges (that ended up failing).
The fixation was because early reporting claimed he brought a weapon across state lines, which would’ve been a slam dunk federal conviction.
Turns out he did not (he was provided one illegally after arriving) but the story was already out and the media absolutely inflamed it by still making sure “state lines” was in every headline.
This is also part of why the DA might have felt pressured to overcharge so as not to get ripped apart in the media.
I do agree that the charges laid against him he should not have been found guilty. If you also look at the moment of the shooting, there is a valid case of self defense. However, if you look at the whole night, Rittenhouse did put him in a situation that he could have completely avoided, but instead went there looking for a fight. Also, his presence probably escalated the violence and there was no attempt at deescalation.
Yep. Totally agree. That’s a much harder charge to bring/prove unfortunately and it doesn’t help how conflicting the laws are.
Rittenhouse continuing to appear in the media is just low intelligence on his part.
If I was in his situation I would stay out of the public view, change my name, maybe change my look, move to Canada or the other side of the country, and go to school for a field where I could spend the rest of my life helping people.
Low intelligence or short sighted?
Different things, but kind of related.
To be fair, I wouldn't expect someone that age to think about that and it is abundantly clear the adults in his life are/were not very smart. They aren't/weren't good people either.
I saw an article the other day on long forgotten John Lee Malvo.
Like Rittenhouse, Malvo had a gun and went hunting people as a teenager.
Malvo is in prison for life.
No MAGA back when he murdered his victims and Malvo is black.
Uhhh for those that don’t recognize the name, Malvo was the DC Sniper
So yeah, hard to make a case for self defense when you’re picking people off out of the trunk of your car at huge ranges.
This is so far from comparable that making it just about MAGA and race is absurd
Two teenagers, badly influenced by bad adults, killing people for fun.
One white and a maga, free. One black, in prison for life.
The context is vastly different though. Rittenhouse did this in one night, at a close range, in basically one location. Malvo and Muhammad did this over weeks, at longer range, over a metropolitan area. I was in elementary school in Northern Virginia at the time. Recess was being held inside, gas stations had tarps for cover and Guardian Angels to pump your gas (I remember bringing donuts to a couple of them), and every other white van was being pulled over. People feared being randomly shot by the DC snipers. They generally don’t/didn’t fear being “Rittenhoused”.
One with a witness in the stand who said they pointed a weapon at them, one shooting people from the trunk of their car who weren’t armed.
Your zealousness does you nor your position no favors.