Fucking Kyle Rittenhouse
Nov. 19th, 2021 08:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
which_chickNot, y'know, having sex with him. Definite incel material there plus also I mean the adjective, not the gerund.
So Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts against him. Should you not know who he is, he's the 17 year old kid who intentionally went to the riots in Kenosha (not his hometown), where he shot and killed two men and injured another.
The charges were as follows:
First degree intentional homicide
Attempted first degree intentional homicide
First degree reckless homicide
First degree recklessly endangering safety
and another First degree recklessly endangering safety
The jury found Kyle NOT GUILTY on all counts.
What can we take away from this?
Well, it's not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy. D'oh.
It's not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy who gives his friend money to buy him an AR-15 which he then keeps at the friend's house so that his mommy doesn't know he owns one. (It is, however, a crime to buy an AR-15 for a seventeen year old boy and his friend Dominick Black was charged for doing that.)
It is not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy who goes to a riot with his AR-15. ('Cause that's a smart thing to do. Stellar seventeen-year-old judgment, there.)
It is not a crime to wander around a riot with your AR-15 prominently displayed (to be fair, it's practically impossible to conceal the damn thing) so that you can... I guess... protect a car dealership? Or not? The wiki is not entirely clear on what Mr. Rittenhouse was doing at the riot or why he felt he had to be there.
It is further NOT A CRIME to defend yourself with up-to-and-including lethal force if, while you are wandering around a riot with your prominently-displayed weapon, you encounter people who intend you possibly-lethal harm. This last one is the only thing that was really on trial here.
The thing is, Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself. Only Kyle knows for sure if he felt he was in danger but judging by the verdict, the jury agreed with his testimony that he felt in danger for his life, so... I guess. The jury was deciding whether or not it was OK for Kyle to defend his life. And the jury decided that yes, it was OK.
Additional questions of "Should he have been there at all?" and "Is it a good idea to go to a riot and parade around like some sort of para-militia with your gun hanging out?" and "Wow, maybe seventeen year old boys should not be out by themselves at a riot with live rounds and a... military-styled weapon and a vague sense of purpose?"... those questions are not really all that relevant to the basic question of "Is Kyle Rittenhouse allowed to defend his life?".
The first guy he shot had chased after him and threw stuff at him and then closed with him threateningly and tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle away, whereupon Rittenhouse shot him and he died.
After that, Rittenhouse fled pursued by other rioters (shouting "Get him" and the like). One knocked him to the ground, one "jump-kicked" at him while he was on the ground, and one slammed him with a skateboard (which is a pretty weapon-y thing to hit people with. It's rigid and heavy enough to cause real harm without looking like a weapon.) before trying to wrestle Rittenhouse's gun away, whereupon Rittenhouse fired once and killed skateboard guy.
The third guy had a gun of his own (and an expired concealed-carry permit) and he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot and injured (but did not kill) him.
There's grounds for Rittenhouse to say he was defending his life. Certainly the jury thought so and that's how the system works. If the jury thinks you did not break a law, they send out a verdict of not guilty, which they did.
Thing is, juries that reach a verdict are limited to "guilty" or "not guilty". They can't offer any commentary on their decision, discuss the sensibility of the law, convict an accused person of something OTHER than what the accused person was charged with, or even say something useful like "Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty of an actual crime but he totally was A DUMBFUCK WHO INTENTIONALLY PUT HIS LIFE IN HARM'S WAY BY HEADING TO A RIOT AND CARRYING AROUND A VISIBLE WEAPON LIKE HE WAS SOME SORT OF VIGILANTE MILITIA, QUITE POSSIBLY ACTING THIS WAY IN ORDER TO HAVE OR MANUFACTURE "AN OPPORTUNITY" TO SHOOT RIOTERS and now two people are dead and a third is injured because of it. Don't Be Like Kyle."
He's not a hero.
He's not "the right kind of American".
He's an idiot child who got his hands on a gun he never should have had, went somewhere he should not have been, and killed two people and injured a third with his stellar seventeen year old judgment and "sense of purpose".
As we do not praise the unsupervised toddler who paints the wall with his own shit, we do not praise the unsupervised seventeen year old incel who gets his hands on a rifle, goes to a riot, and winds up killing two people and shooting a third.
So Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts against him. Should you not know who he is, he's the 17 year old kid who intentionally went to the riots in Kenosha (not his hometown), where he shot and killed two men and injured another.
The charges were as follows:
First degree intentional homicide
Attempted first degree intentional homicide
First degree reckless homicide
First degree recklessly endangering safety
and another First degree recklessly endangering safety
The jury found Kyle NOT GUILTY on all counts.
What can we take away from this?
Well, it's not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy. D'oh.
It's not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy who gives his friend money to buy him an AR-15 which he then keeps at the friend's house so that his mommy doesn't know he owns one. (It is, however, a crime to buy an AR-15 for a seventeen year old boy and his friend Dominick Black was charged for doing that.)
It is not a crime to be a seventeen year old boy who goes to a riot with his AR-15. ('Cause that's a smart thing to do. Stellar seventeen-year-old judgment, there.)
It is not a crime to wander around a riot with your AR-15 prominently displayed (to be fair, it's practically impossible to conceal the damn thing) so that you can... I guess... protect a car dealership? Or not? The wiki is not entirely clear on what Mr. Rittenhouse was doing at the riot or why he felt he had to be there.
It is further NOT A CRIME to defend yourself with up-to-and-including lethal force if, while you are wandering around a riot with your prominently-displayed weapon, you encounter people who intend you possibly-lethal harm. This last one is the only thing that was really on trial here.
The thing is, Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself. Only Kyle knows for sure if he felt he was in danger but judging by the verdict, the jury agreed with his testimony that he felt in danger for his life, so... I guess. The jury was deciding whether or not it was OK for Kyle to defend his life. And the jury decided that yes, it was OK.
Additional questions of "Should he have been there at all?" and "Is it a good idea to go to a riot and parade around like some sort of para-militia with your gun hanging out?" and "Wow, maybe seventeen year old boys should not be out by themselves at a riot with live rounds and a... military-styled weapon and a vague sense of purpose?"... those questions are not really all that relevant to the basic question of "Is Kyle Rittenhouse allowed to defend his life?".
The first guy he shot had chased after him and threw stuff at him and then closed with him threateningly and tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle away, whereupon Rittenhouse shot him and he died.
After that, Rittenhouse fled pursued by other rioters (shouting "Get him" and the like). One knocked him to the ground, one "jump-kicked" at him while he was on the ground, and one slammed him with a skateboard (which is a pretty weapon-y thing to hit people with. It's rigid and heavy enough to cause real harm without looking like a weapon.) before trying to wrestle Rittenhouse's gun away, whereupon Rittenhouse fired once and killed skateboard guy.
The third guy had a gun of his own (and an expired concealed-carry permit) and he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot and injured (but did not kill) him.
There's grounds for Rittenhouse to say he was defending his life. Certainly the jury thought so and that's how the system works. If the jury thinks you did not break a law, they send out a verdict of not guilty, which they did.
Thing is, juries that reach a verdict are limited to "guilty" or "not guilty". They can't offer any commentary on their decision, discuss the sensibility of the law, convict an accused person of something OTHER than what the accused person was charged with, or even say something useful like "Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty of an actual crime but he totally was A DUMBFUCK WHO INTENTIONALLY PUT HIS LIFE IN HARM'S WAY BY HEADING TO A RIOT AND CARRYING AROUND A VISIBLE WEAPON LIKE HE WAS SOME SORT OF VIGILANTE MILITIA, QUITE POSSIBLY ACTING THIS WAY IN ORDER TO HAVE OR MANUFACTURE "AN OPPORTUNITY" TO SHOOT RIOTERS and now two people are dead and a third is injured because of it. Don't Be Like Kyle."
He's not a hero.
He's not "the right kind of American".
He's an idiot child who got his hands on a gun he never should have had, went somewhere he should not have been, and killed two people and injured a third with his stellar seventeen year old judgment and "sense of purpose".
As we do not praise the unsupervised toddler who paints the wall with his own shit, we do not praise the unsupervised seventeen year old incel who gets his hands on a rifle, goes to a riot, and winds up killing two people and shooting a third.
