puredmg
PURE ELDENRINGPURE DIABLOPURE CYBERPUNKPUREDMG

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
583
234
43
Here
Kid was a bit foolish and naive I think, but right from the very beginning every last shred of evidence was screaming self defense and zero racial motivations whatsoever. Quite the opposite of the story being shoved down our throats by the usual suspects. He's got a near rock solid case against numerous prominent public figures for slander IMO, should he choose to go that route.
 

krischan

Moderator
Moderator
Dec 24, 2019
488
365
63
55
I'm a bit with Glurin on this matter. As far as I know, one of those he shot (and survived) admitted that he was pointing a gun at him at some time. I don't know what the situation was in detail, but he was threatened with a gun and in Wisconsin it's allowed to shoot if one's life (or property as well, probably) is threatened. Perhaps he took a rather big chunk of that privilege and perhaps the situation could have been resolved by not killing others, but that was to be proven by others and I don't think it could.

Systematically, this did what it was supposed to do.
Exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talga Vasternich

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
583
234
43
Here
Do y'all think this case will set a new precedent for future self defense cases?
Not really. Overly zealous prosecutors going after people acting in self defense has been a problem for a very long time. This case is just one of the more egregious examples made worse with politicians and news and social media all falling over each other to get in on the witch trial. And if the post verdict coverage is any indication, they're just going to quintuple down on their bogus narrative that never had any ground to stand on in the first place.

In any rational, objective setting, this case was a textbook example of clear cut self defense. All of the evidence showed he fired his gun after being ambushed and assaulted by violent rioters and attempting to get away from them, along with video showing the primary instigator on multiple occasions leading up to the incident attempting to provoke a fight. As previously mentioned, even the prosecution's star witness admitted he was aiming his own weapon at Kyle at the time he was shot.

It never should have gone to trial at all, but perhaps in this one instance it's for the best that it did.
 

krischan

Moderator
Moderator
Dec 24, 2019
488
365
63
55
It never should have gone to trial at all


It totally had to go to trial because the public was torn about it. It wasn't a crystal clear case.

but perhaps in this one instance it's for the best that it did.

Which is your way of stating what I just wrote ;)
 

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
583
234
43
Here
Well lets be clear here. The public was torn about it because of the politically motivated and biased coverage. Not because of any lack of evidence. There was more than enough video to paint a clear picture of events available to the public just days after the incident took place.

The prosecutor never had a case to begin with and he knew it. That's why he had to resort to unethical and unconstitutional behavior like withholding exculpatory evidence, filing charges that absolutely did not apply and questioning the exercise of basic Miranda rights. All of which earned him a well deserved talking to by the judge. Had this not been such a high profile case, it's not unreasonable to believe it would have been dismissed with prejudice within hours of starting.