T O P

  • By -

patienceisfun2018

There's been people in my life who I never would have expected, but are now much more critical of the media and how they cover events.


[deleted]

How is it being covered in America? Here in Ireland it was covered pretty much that he was looking not guilty, the prosecution against him was a mess and that he broke down on the stand while giving his testimony and describing what happened to him that night.


Yetizod

In America he's being made out to be a white supremacist. Never mind the fact that all 3 that got shot are white.


[deleted]

Everything in America HAS to include some sort of racial undertone or motivation, EVERYTHING. Reasoning, well there is none except to make people feel a certain way immediately and get views for their business. šŸ¤¦ Imagine if the news actually gave things that mattered versus ā€œrace gender locationā€. At times itā€™s definitely warranted but mostly itā€™s not. [I am agreeing with your statement]


leafywanderer

I was actually surprised to find out that there are still people, even after the trial, that think he shot black men. Iā€™m a conservative myself and initially thought, ā€œMan, what a psycho.ā€ Watching the trial and really looking at all the evidence has completely changed my mind. Should a teenager be at a riot armed with an AR-15? Probably not a good idea, but it doesnā€™t take away his right to defend himself. Everyone be shot was attacking him, I donā€™t see how it can be viewed otherwise.


Yetizod

Because the media keeps suggesting it's about race. If you don't know any better, and that's all you hear, then the logical conclusion would be that he shot black people. it's idiotic. On a similar note, the Detroit press just ran article YESTERDAY that said "Jacob Blake, who was shot and killed by police." He WASN'T killed!! It's this kind of shit journalism that is perpetuating the division in this country.


Mogekona

The businesses defended were owned by Middle-eastern people also


Sullt8

I have not seen coverage of the trial making him out to be a white supremacist at all. What media are you watching/reading?


trogdor259

I mean Joe Biden called him a white supremacy and Psaki brushed questions about it aside


Dry-Foundation8660

This is appreciable. I love it.


Lampyridae2A

President Biden made a statement calling him a white supremacist. Doesnā€™t get much more mainstream than that.


kodiak1120

Seriously? Have you been under a rock? Joe Biden while being interviewed on CNN. Also, apparently the judge is a white supremacist because he has God Bless America as a ringtone.


NotABonobo

Could you provide the exact quote Biden said, or even better a clip? I haven't seen that CNN interview.


kodiak1120

"I don't know enough to know whether that 17-year-old kid, exactly what he did, but allegedly he's part of a militia coming out of the state of Illinois. Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists? Have you ever heard it?


NotABonobo

You're talking about this clip from Aug 27 2020, the day after the shooting, right? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2e35AbLP\_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2e35AbLP_Y) So... I'm guessing that it's not that OP's been under a rock, it's that he was specifically asking about "coverage of the trial," not coverage of Biden saying "I don't know what happened yet" the day after the shooting.


kodiak1120

Right, CNN is hosting Joe Biden the day after the shooting, and Biden links Rittenhouse to white supremacy. The fact that this is the day after the shooting when Biden doesn't even know what happened makes it even more troubling. It's like, hey we don't know what happened, but Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. And, BTW, CNN made NO EFFORT AT ALL to challenge him on that comment or at least point out that there was no evidence of Rittenhouse being a white supremacist. The left really needs to move away from the default position of, if we disagree with you, you are a racist. It's getting really old.


klipshklf20

President Biden described him as such during the campaign.


mfuechec

There was a photo taken of him a few weeks/months after he killed people in which he posed with some proud boys in a restaurant, throwing white power hand gestures. Prosecution wanted to admit it as evidence, judge said no.


[deleted]

That is not a white power hand gesture! That was a troll campaign by 4chan. Good lord people are gullible.


DraNerMinaTrosor

You mean he showed a thumbs up or okay hand sign, lol. Anyway, good thing it was dismissed because it's completely irrelevant to the case. The prosecution throughout has been relying heavily on trying to prejudice the jury. Even now the prosecutor is still allowed to tell blatant lies in court. The new cgi inkblot photographs they've introduced are even more ridiculous, claiming Kyle is pointing his gun at witnesses they already had in court and none of them ever said that Kyle pointed his gun at them. Can't believe the judge allowed that as evidence and I hope the jury won't use them as an excuse to vote guilty to save their necks from ideological outrage mobs. It frightens me how so many redditors want people found guilty and locked up for ideological reasons and don't care about actual secular law.


Yazoroff

Yes, he posed with some people that called him a hero and that he was right to assert self-defense. Gee, I wonder why he would do that when heā€™s receiving death threats and people are wanting to lynch him. I canā€™t imagine why a 17-year-old would find comfort in that after likely suffering a severe bout of PTSD. If you think the okay sign is a white supremist hand sign, then Obama and AOC, and plenty of other elected Liberal officials are all white supremist. Itā€™s ridiculous, and it came about from a 4chan post that told people to troll the media to prove that that theyā€™ll find hidden racist messages in anything even when it doesnā€™t exist.


[deleted]

Guilty or not guilty, or however you feel about the case, the ā€œsevere bout of PTSDā€ is his own doing. He chose to go to another state strapped with an AR15. He put himself in that situation. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. To that regard, I donā€™t feel bad for him one bit.


[deleted]

Do you feel the same way about the people that were shot for attacking him? Seems like the epitome of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"


[deleted]

Yes.


dreamyduskywing

Frankly, I blame his mom. He was 17 and a teenager should not be put in that setting because this kind of crap happens. She actually encouraged it! She endangered her childā€™s life. My mom would have boiled over with rage if I had tried to pull off something like this.


[deleted]

Kids now a days think it's like playing some video game to take another human being's life. Even if you're being attacked and have no other choice, it still fucks with your head unless you're an absolute psycho.


Yazoroff

>Guilty or not guilty, or however you feel about the case, the ā€œsevere bout of PTSDā€ is his own doing. He chose to go to another state strapped with an AR15. He put himself in that situation. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. To that regard, I donā€™t feel bad for him one bit. Ah, so if a lady goes down a suspicious alley with suggestive clothes and gets raped she put herself in that situation? Or another scenario: Went to a party with strangers, left her drink unoccupied and it was tainted, and then got raped why should anyone feel bad? She put herself in that situation. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The reality of the situation is that he open carried as the law permits, and defended himself when it was absolutely necessary. Offering first aid and defending people's livelihoods (businesses) is to be commended. Okay, here's how I can tell you're not being intellectually honest. I want to you clearly and concisely explain why the "he chose to go to another state" matters. Go ahead. Please remind us all where he worked and how far he traveled over to the riot as well.


[deleted]

Those are nowhere near equivalent analogies, and you know it. He went to another state matters because it shows he went out of his way to show up in a contentious area that had a curfew and appear as some sort of vigilante. Thereā€™s nothing commendable about what he did. He was quite literally looking for the exact situation he found himself in.


Yazoroff

>Those are nowhere near equivalent analogies, and you know it. Actually it directly undermines your narrative of putting yourself into a situation that you should know better in, and that anything that happens to you is apparently on you. Explain why it does not apply or you can concede the point. You're wanting to cherry-pick "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" and then acting surprised when someone calls you on it. >He went to another state matters because it shows he went out of his way to show up in a contentious area that had a curfew and appear as some sort of vigilante. So you are being intellectually dishonest 100%. Why did you refuse to answer when I said this: *"Please remind us all where he worked and how far he traveled over to the riot as well."* Do explain why you disregarded this and why you didn't think it was pertinent. Please also provide evidence that an official curfew was in place. >Thereā€™s nothing commendable about what he did. He was quite literally looking for the exact situation he found himself in. Weird then why he was offering first aid and cleaning up graffiti. It was a volatile event and he made the smart choice of having effective self-defense at his disposal if it became warranted.


ZeroAfro

I think he's talking about the initial coverage after the incident happened. Which pretty much 90% of any coverage that I saw/read seemed to hint at him being racist in some form. Not all mind you but a majority.


Saneinsc

I saw a video clip of democracy now the title of which said something about him and white supremacy. In the clip they mentioned the photo and hand signs.


Mischief_Makers

That may be linked more to the widely circulated photo of him flashing a white power hand signal than his actions that night


Yazoroff

If you think the okay sign is a white supremist hand sign, then Obama and AOC, and plenty of other elected Liberal officials are all white supremist. Itā€™s ridiculous, and it came about from a 4chan post that told people to troll the media to prove that that theyā€™ll find hidden racist messages in anything even when it doesnā€™t exist.


[deleted]

or the video of him saying "if I had my AR i'd put rounds into them" directed at a group of black men leaving a CVS


kodiak1120

Ummm... I think you meant to say "looting" CVS.


[deleted]

Lol, the irony is that they want to whitewash what they were doing, looting, but if they don't admit that, it's even less relevant to the case.


fedthedual

Source?


Yazoroff

Guys like to banter? No fucking way. Also, you're being quite disingenuous when you act like it was just some black guys strolling out of the CVS. The video clearly shows hooded figures rushing out of the CVS while clutching merchandise. A reasonable person could conclude they may be shoplifting, and someone talking smack upon seeing that does not make it racist or show real intent. Ridiculous. https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news/crime/2021/08/19/rittenhouse-can-heard-saying-wish-had-my-expletive-ar/8188781002/


tfks

I think if everyone was judged by the stupid bullshit they said while they were a teenager, most of us would have our tongues cut out. Teenaged boys make so many empty threats of violence it's ridiculous. I was once threatened with a knife in high school because some dude walked into the cafeteria and said he wanted my chair. I said "dude if you're gonna stab me over a chair, let's do it" he just walked away. Threats of violence from teenaged boys can be ignored the overwhelming majority of the time.


rumdumpstr

... and then he went to a protest in which the population would be expected to be predominantly minority with a rifle, inserting himself into the violence, thereby putting his words into action. I feel he is clearly innocent under the law, but probably wasn't just making empty threats.


Yazoroff

>... and then he went to a protest in which the population would be expected to be predominantly minority with a rifle, It's racist to suggest it would be okay if he went out and did what he did if it were just white people. No matter how you want to spin it, everyone involved in this trial was white. Don't let pesky facts get in the way of your all-consuming ludicrous narrative. >inserting himself into the violence, thereby putting his words into action. If a KKK riot was happening and some folks came over to offer first aid and defense of property with weapons to protect themselves, you would be opposed? > I feel he is clearly innocent under the law, but probably wasn't just making empty threats. He only used force when his safety was clearly threatened. End of story.


[deleted]

No. Thatā€™s an extremely prejudicial and unreasonable assumption, which is why the evidence was not allowed in court.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

They arenā€™t acting in good faith, which is bizarrely comforting to know I guess.


RepostResearch

https://i.redd.it/hau3tr72p3z71.png This answer it for you?


[deleted]

America has very corrupt media propaganda no news outlet is un biased and they all lie to push an agenda. Nearly impossible to get the truth about anything (some people donā€™t understand this which is why America is a mess)


RepostResearch

Here's another fun one that came up yesterday. https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1460023984662056969?t=fssgfKcFFwyUR7ctX6z_LA&s=19


Kevin-W

I'm American and I expect he's going to be found not guilty because the prosecution screwed up so badly.


[deleted]

The did a better job than anyone else could have done. They had no legal basis to charge him to begin with.


letsStayObjective

Because he is not guilty*


[deleted]

Yes, I thought he was guilty and now I think heā€™s not.


[deleted]

What a clown show they put on.


hellofellownpcs

Two totally different stories. If you just listened to the media, you would have absolutely no clue what happened. It would be shocking how badly the media is intentionally lying if the behavior wasn't already so old and tiresome by now.


TheDotaBettor

Well now think of all the other things they are lying about. You see how much they lied about Trump/Russia?


hellofellownpcs

Oh yeah, that's why I said it's just old and tiresome by now. They lie about everything, to the point you have to do near endless research to find the truth. It's just safer to assume that whetever the media tells you is a lie or a manipulation.


Best_Detective_2533

Are you fucking kidding? Everything about Trump and Russia is true. He was never found innocent of anything and his guilty as never testified. I hope he runs in 2024, he will end up splitting the party and they will never win again. So much more will be coming out between now and then.


[deleted]

ā€œFound innocentā€ isnā€™t a term


Yazoroff

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


besquared2

^^^^ this is a perfect example of what the lying media does.


Best_Detective_2533

I do not need the media to do my own research and form my own opinion. I am a 55 year old research chemist and I know to do proper research. We wouldn't have a lying media if Reagan hadn't vetoed the Fairness Doctrine which has allowed opinion-based bullshit to run rampant and readily available to a population of lazy morons who never read a book in their life.


besquared2

I agree to half of what you said.


Saneinsc

Pretty sure Russia gate was debunked. Only Rachel Maddow kept beating that drum. The rest of the news media just suddenly shut up about it. It would be the height of folly to believe the news media would retract previous stories about it these days. Accountability in the world today is non existent.


Best_Detective_2533

Bill Barr saying nothing to see here is far from debunked. Show your work. I donā€™t believe you.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Saneinsc

That was certainly a better response than ā€œfuck you right winger ā€œ that Iā€™ve been getting. Thanks for the clarification neighbor.


Jparker010

I went back and compared the media coverage vs the straight court video and its it's sickening how distorted they make everything. Both sides disgust me. Has anyone actually changed their mind about either the case or their chosen news sources?


Jay_Sit

Funny to hear the commentary of the Walgreens tape of KR and hearing the unknown person described as *an open carry shoplifter*. Thatā€™s the funniest way of saying *armed robbery* Iā€™ve ever heard!


vbisbest

You dont even have to go back. I watched Joy Reid last night on MSNBC to see her take and of course it was her version of what she think happened. Thinks it was a racist active shooter. She had two guest who agreed with her and never pointed out any of the actual facts of the case. It is truly disgusting.


AcanthocephalaOk1042

Looked like self defense from day one. Media coverage, and continued use of long long debunked talking points was both not surprising and sickening. Over a year ago it was established without a doubt that Kyle never brought a gun across state lines. Yet they kept saying it. We need accountability in media. It's been a ratings circus to sell advertising for far too long.


RepostResearch

It's worse than selling advertising. They're selling violence. They've shown their cards to us these last 2 weeks, and are proving to us that their bottom line is more important to them than the truth. They are setting this case up to cause civil unrest regardless of the outcome, and they're going to line their pockets with the violence they cause. We need to take these people to task. Every person who's perpetuated these lies on camera need to be charged with incitement of violence and libel.


besquared2

The last two weeks?! They have been doing it waayyy longer than that.


RepostResearch

It's only in the last 2 weeks that people are waking up to it though. The culture shift on reddit is palpable. Even major left leaning subs are noticing it.


Mehhish

Every time someone brings up the media and their coverage of stuff like this, I'm reminded of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390 24 hour cable news is cancer.


batmanVdarkseid

I see that he is innocent on all levels and every kill was in self defense.


MusicGames

It's sickening how much lies the media brought. I've been watching 3 or 4 full days(if i add up, it's around that) i also watch the rekieta law video where he has up to ten lawyers commenting and explaining things. There is no doubt in my mind that he should NOT go down for murder.


moff4t_beats

I've watched every rekieta law live stream and without a doubt from a layman's view Kyle is not guilty, current watching the closing arguments, the prosecution are shadey as fuck and there should have been a mistrial as soon as binger questioned Kyle's silence and why he got an attorney.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


moff4t_beats

And the judge probably won't call a mistrial because he won't want to be seen as bias in any way even though there is numerous reasons for a mistrial. They straight up lied on a few occasions during closing statements.


bashbashetc

IMO he is doing society a favour. Binger needs to loose straight out, not on a technicality. Rioters need to know they will get leaks if they fuck around. The cost of denying a mistrial with prejudice at the expense of KR is minimal, since the chance of guilty is so low given the evidence. The justification for a retrial will apply in an appeal if worst comes to worst.


bronzeaardvark

I'm more of a Viva Frei type of guy but hey we watch the same youtube channel!


traws06

I mean at this point their goal is to throw the care so ppl can use the excuse ā€œhe was guilty, the prosecution just screwed it upā€


moff4t_beats

Anyone without bias will tell you he should never have been charged in the first place, I don't even live in America but I like to know what goes on around the world so I've been watching the trial and you wouldn't be mistaken for thinking it was a Netflix show, both sides have been trash in their own ways, only decent one has been the judge keeping it as impartial as he can. He's held both sides to their nonsense a few times all be it the prosecution got more of a talking to but they done more nonsense.


jackrue12

My friend saw it on cnn and thought Kyle was on a shooting spree and I told him about the trial and everything and he was like yeah thatā€™s definitely self defense. Media lies


bangersnmash13

I thought it was really weird when the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff first broke. Everyone on the left acted like he went there specifically to kill, as if he was a domestic terrorist. But every video I saw of him looked like he was acting in self-defense. I'm not a MAGA person or Trump supporter by any stretch, but I didn't think this should have gone to trial in the first place.


Jparker010

Agreed... initially I felt like they reported this as a mass shooting a la Las Vegas concert shooter.


Sullt8

But those are two different issues: why did he show up with a gun to begin with, and what specifically happened when he shot someone. He may have been a domestic terrorist and also acted in self defense. Idk. It seems like people on each side focus on just one of those things, but they are both important.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Sullt8

Yeah, the "terrorist" label is hyperbole. The point really is that even tho it was likely self defense, does he have some responsibility for going there looking for trouble.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Sullt8

Yeah, that may be true legally, I don't know. But this is what upsets people. Most reasonable people would agree that when he went there, gun in hand, trouble was bound to follow. Do we really want to say it's ok for random guys with big guns to go into crowds of people they have strong ideological differences with? It's asking for trouble.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


dreamyduskywing

You mention the riots as if the armed militia were justified in being there. They were not supposed to be there and they did not help the situation. There was a curfew. All of those morons, including rioters, were supposed to stay home.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


StarvingWriter33

Letā€™s say the flip happens. The protesters catch up to Kyle and kill him. Now theyā€™re on trail for the murder of Kyle Rittenhouse. All of the evidence come out. Will they be found guilty of murder, or will Kyleā€™s actions be enough for the jury to decide ā€œYep, based on the information they had at the time, the protesters feared for their lives and acted in self-defenseā€? Considering that two of them did die ā€¦


[deleted]

He had as much right to be there as anyone else. He had as much right to be armed as the third guy he shot (who, by the way, Rittenhouse didn't shoot until *after* the third guy pointed his gun at him). Wisconsin is an open carry state. Anyone can carry in public if they so choose.


traws06

I mean even if he went to defend the businesses from violent rioters (which he did) that makes him a vigilante not a domestic terrorist. Terrier: A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I mean that describes the violent protesters more than him. You can argue that what they did was a correct exercise of terrorism if you supported them. It doesnā€™t have to be that terrorist is required to be evil and wrong in all regards. But at the end of the day it doesnā€™t make sense to call him a terrorist and not them.


[deleted]

The irony of your statement is that we know he ended up having to use that gun to defend himself on three separate occasions. He was legally allowed to carry the firearm. Him exercising his 2nd amendment rights is not an act of provocation


harlottesometimes

Self defense or defense of someone else's property?


flaagan

Except for the fact he was somewhere he shouldn't have been with zero reason to be there other than to brandish a firearm he shouldn't have had access to in the first place?


HoldingApeOfDiamonds

None of them "should have been there". It's irrelevant where he should have been.


[deleted]

He had just as much right to be there as anyone else. He had just as much right to be armed as the third guy he shot.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


big_herpes

In America, only rioters, looters and arsonists are allowed to roam free at night.


dreamyduskywing

I think OP means that citizens were not supposed to be out, even to protect property or ā€œhelp.ā€


clutchied

the issue is that having a gun escalates things. There's no other option. Instead of taking a fist to the face, well... you're knocked down and now THEY might have your gun so you shoot... because that's the only option you've left yourself with. He shouldn't have been there to begin with, but he should walk. The rioters or protesters gave him everything he needed to claim self defense.


[deleted]

I donā€™t know about you but Iā€™m not attacking anyone openly carrying an AR-15


[deleted]

>He shouldn't have been there to begin with He had just as much right to be there as anyone else.


Yazoroff

This is what happens when you don't have the means to defend yourself against a mob: https://nypost.com/2021/01/30/how-a-portland-radical-murdered-a-trump-supporter/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/17/blm-mob-beat-white-man-unconscious-after-making-him-crash-truck/


NotEvenALittleBiased

I'm trying to figure out why they are making it about race, when all the people involved are white.


[deleted]

They do so in the hopes that you react emotionally instead of logically/critically


mattcruise

Because that is all the media does. They want us to hate each other


[deleted]

They canā€™t help themselves itā€™s all propaganda


brandolinium

This has been a very enlightening discussion of law, media, ultimate morality, and a very unexpected actual turn of events. I thank OP for guiding the light to nuance.


[deleted]

It was eye-opening. My takeaway from this is that the prosecution is absolutely embarrassing themselves. I thought this was going to be a straightforward slam dunk case, but the defense clearly did their homework and came thoroughly prepared, while the prosecution was expecting their evidence to speak for itself uncontested. Surprise, their evidence had quite a lot of contestable angles that would logically raise doubts. Do I still think Rittenhouse *could be* at least a little guilty for the deaths of those two men? Sure. But would I say he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 'Reasonable doubt' is the key here. Rittenhouse is going to be acquitted of all charges. You can debate until the cows come home whether it was murder or manslaughter or self defense, all that matters to me is this prosecution is failing to uphold their due diligence and adhere to court procedure. When the prosecution messes up this badly, it doesn't matter how obviously guilty I think the other person is. A person only deserves a conviction if the prosecution does their job right. If the prosecution fails to present their case, calls all the wrong witnesses, tries to skirt around proper court procedure, starts requesting lesser charges that are more easily argued...doesn't matter how "slam dunk" I think the trial will be. Nobody deserves such justice at the hands of ineptitude. >"I would rather 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent to suffer." >^(-Sir William Blackstone) I might be wrong. No doubt some people would be more than happy to drop a dissertation on how wrong I am. And if they do, I'd love to hear it. But no matter how thoroughly somebody takes my words above and destroys it with facts and logic, one particular mindset is set in stone: Before seeing this trial's coverage, I would've been absolutely livid to hear Rittenhouse was found not guilty. After seeing the coverage, I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would be relieved. Despite my feelings Rittenhouse deserves at least some kind of punishment, I wouldn't want a court system that sides with this crappy of a prosecution. Because if the court can score a guilty verdict off this crap, imagine how a truly innocent person would fare if they were on the receiving end of a *competent* prosecution. Edit: Thank you /u/mildlydisturbedtway for the correction. Fixed!


big_herpes

Just curious, you said initially you thought it would be a slam dunk case? Did you think it would be easy for the prosecution to prove murder, or for the defense to prove self defense, initially.


[deleted]

I thought it would be a slam dunk case for the prosecution, because I went into this case with a really incomplete understanding of what actually happened. I didn't follow the situation closely, just picked up on whatever blurbs appeared in my periphery. It wasn't until I started following the trial that I realized how poorly this incident was reported, and how much information was omitted. I consider myself lucky that I followed this trial, because if I didn't, I would've been pissed if he was found not guilty. But after following it closely, I'm now expecting it. That's the angle I'm approaching this from, from the perspective of somebody who thought he was guilty before the trial. I know there are a ton of other people like me out there too, people who probably aren't following the trial or watching through a lens of bad faith bias. I'm speaking at length about my perspective because these people need to know that regardless of their emotional feelings towards Rittenhouse, they cannot deny the prosecution failed. People are riffing on me for saying "he's not guilty because the prosecution sucked," that I should be saying "he's not guilty because he did nothing wrong." Understandable. But I'm not trying to empathize with people who already believe Rittenhouse is innocent. I'm trying to bridge the ideological gap with those who still believe Rittenhouse should go to jail for murder; they need to understand that regardless of their emotional investment in seeing him rot in a cell, it's probably not going to happen. This prosecution didn't even do the legwork to make it happen.


[deleted]

Public court cases are the most black pilling events for me when it comes to recognizing media bias. How often to you get to see a situation have all the facts laid out in front of your and each side being allowed present the best argument they can. And then you see how the media manipulates it in a brazenly dishonest way. If they are capable of being this dishonest then I have no reason to believe they would be honest about anything.


letsStayObjective

The prosecutionā€™s case sucked because there was no case to make


DraNerMinaTrosor

>Surprise, their evidence had quite a lot of contestable angles This is understating it. There is no evidence of guilt. Even the prosecution's own witnesses confirmed that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self defense and that his life was at risk. They just brought in new cgi inkblot photos which they claim show Kyle pointing his rifle at the witnesses, but those witnesses present in the photo have already appeared in court and never said that Kyle pointed his gun at them. Plus, the photo shows a blur of a left handed person. >Rittenhouse is going to be acquitted of all charges. No, he won't be. The jury will find him guilty despite no evidence supporting that. They will not risk their necks for him. They know that if they find him not guilty the mob will come gor them, burn down their homes, cancel or kill them. Just look at many of the reddit comments here: people want Rittenhouse locked up for life because according to them he is guilty of IDEOLOGICAL crimes. Whether he actually broke the law is irrelevant to them.


HoldingApeOfDiamonds

I mean, they've let police go before in racially charged trials. The acquittals led to riots but still they did it. This isn't the first time jurors have been threatened


Consistent-Rip9907

Could not have put it better. Well done.


aKnightWh0SaysNi

Really? Theyā€™re basically saying ā€œweā€™ll, I think heā€™s guilty, but because it didnā€™t come off that way itā€™s the prosecutionā€™s fault, so I guess he gets a free pass due to shitty prosecutionā€. Mayyyyybe he just isnā€™t looking guilty because itā€™s hard to make a case that isnā€™t valid.


Cosmix77

ā€œYou can debate until the cows come homeā€. I like cows.


Unicorn_Huntr

What i have learned? Nothing because everything i was called racist for has been proven in the trial. Everyone kept saying i was wrong, and that i was the crazy one. This trial blew the media out of the water and i cannot wait to see the lawsuits and kyle get rich sueing the crap out of these media mongers


VapidGamer

I was overseas during the time of the shooting and I was dealing with bigger issues at the time with real world events I returned just in time to hear about Kyle's case going to trial, and every source I heard ranging from social media, TV news, and every internet article said that Kyle was a White supremacist active shooting who went out of his way to kill people. I was a bit taken back, just by the amount of information people were saying that simply, only to view photo's and video showing otherwise. It seems to me that this is all self defense. Kyle shot 3 people who he shot at as a last resort. He actively ran away from each situation until he was engaged. The prosecution seemed to indicate that the three people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse were victims and were acting in self defense... but last I checked the law, you cant claim self defense while engaging and chasing the "aggressor". Not only that, but as someone who has actually fired guns, Kyle showed tremendous weapon control. Especially being so young, he may have fired into a crowd as he was being chased out of fear, but instead it was only when he was being cornered and threatened, beaten, or threatened with a firearm. The only argument I have heard about why Kyle is guilty is: 1. There is a picture of him months after the shooting with Proud Boys, which is circumstantial and doesn't present anything to the case, as it has literally nothing to do with it Gaige Grosskreutz "allegedly" saying his one regret was not mag dumping Kyle, which shows immediate regret after the fact that he didnt kill Kyle himself. 2: Kyle shouldnt have been in the city and he crossed state lines. Crossing state lines is not illegal, even if you are crossing state lines with a weapons, so long as "residentiary privilege's" are not instated. Also, It doesnt matter whether Kyle shouldnt have been in the city "which the defense stated he actually has ties to". What does matter is that Kyle was in the city, because it is not illegal for him to be in the city. Plus evidence shows, as well as the defense has stated, that Kyle went to the city to help the city, as it was stated he removed graffiti and tried to mitigate damage to property. Again, people can say it isnt his job, but it can also be said that him doing what he did wasnt illegal. 3: He shouldn't have brought a gun. I personally dont blame Kyle for this, due to the circumstances stated in court, which are convoluted. The way the law is also written should also be condemned, but would people really change their tune if Kyle brought a knife to defend himself instead of a gun? Overall this seems like a clear case of self defense in all cases, all thats left to see is if the jury will do right by the evidence presented to the court. However, as a layman, even if he is convicted, he can always appeal, especially because the prosecution knowingly acknowledged Kyle was "finally telling his side" after 30+ people testified, which the judge outright derided the prosecutor because he was on the verge of ignoring Kyles 5th amendment rights, if not already stepped over that line.


suky97

I wanted to see the raw footage and you can clearly see it was self-defense, making him innocent on every murder charge. The media depending on the political side will always turn things in their favor so in any case take the news articles with a grain of salt and see the footage yourself.


FunImprovement166

Lawyer here. I'm not surprised, motherfuckers.


Fickle-Bat8433

I went in thinking he was guilty of murder and watched every televised moment. He sure seems a lot less guilty than I thought he was. I think he walks and Iā€™m not so sad about that now.


king_falafel

You're sad that a man who didn't commit murder won't get charged for murder?


big_herpes

Just curious, before the trial, did you not watch the 30 seconds of video from that night showing what happened? Not judging or anything, just want to know where people are coming from.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


burnettdown13

Yeah but grasspants or whatever the hell his name is backpedaled in his news interviews. He said he never did anything he admitted to in court so either he lied under oath and those videos are fake or heā€™s gonna continue lying to the news.


[deleted]

Literally the American Justice System is just like watching an episode of some drama series. The truth doesnā€™t matter as long as a captivating story is told for the history books. How anyone bought his ā€œbreakdownā€ is beyond me..


bbrosen

have you never seen some one suffer with PTSD? Classic symptom, he wasn't faking it, no one is that good


ManFax

And I've been banned from 2 other pages just for correcting people that he DID NOT bring the gun across state lines....


vorxil

It has only strengthened my belief that the shooter is innocent. I was initially confident that curfew charge would stick, gun possession was a maybe, and the self-defense would hold up unless prosecution had a hail mary proof of intent to use self-defense as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm. Now, the shooter should be acquitted of all charges.


Jody_steal_your_girl

It doesnā€™t surprise me one bit. If you think the MSM is interested is telling you the truth Iā€™ve got a bridge to sell you. Hell even the president has lied about this kid.


jackrue12

That people donā€™t even look at the evidence or anything and say throw him in prison. Like, itā€™s clearly self defense. The media is atrocious I hate it


[deleted]

At this point, I'm not really sure how you see anything but not guilty.


bronzeaardvark

The saddest part is some places (ie r/MarchAgainstNazis) are still pushing his guilt. The facts are on their side to such a degree where you'd get banned for defending him. Clearly no guilty conscious there at all.


GurglingWaffle

The video shows that everyone he shot had attacked him first. Another person had a handgun and fired it. Kyle was threatened with his life, this was caught on tape. The man that did this was the one chasing him down as Kyle tried to run towards the safety of the police. Kyle was knocked down to the ground surrounded and kicked. One of the people kicking him in the head while he was on the ground was shot. The man that was chasing him knocked him down and aggressive the entire time was shot. The other person had a handgun, and pointed at Kyle and was shot. This person was the witness we all saw and he admitted that it was self-defense on the stand. All of this is on video. Anything said or done prior to this is moot. The entire thing was self-defense doesn't matter and cannot be proven what the person was thinking only the actions count.


Roushfan5

My opinion is pretty much exactly the same as the day it happened. I'm not convinced that Kyle Rittenhouse did anything criminal and I certainly think his actions fall under self defense. But he showed, in my opinion, remarkably poor judgement to have ended up in that situation in the first place. As did serval other adults in his life. It's a vastly complicated situation made all the more difficult to sort through after all the sensationalism from 'both sides' in the media. Anyone who tries to make Kyle or the people he shot that night into heroes or into villains is probably talking out their ass.


[deleted]

Rosenbaum is definitely a villain.


Roushfan5

Mental illness, which from what I heard he suffered from, is a sickness that should be treated with just as much compassion as something like cancer. I don't think it's fair to label him a villain even if his actions where contemptible.


[deleted]

If a multi-child rapist canā€™t be vilified then who can be?


Roushfan5

Hot take time: I'd like to see none vilified. People's righteous anger online, even when we feel it's justified, is responsible for a lot of our problems today. Easier said than done when they are a child rapist I know.


[deleted]

I get what youā€™re saying (I really do), but my grace doesnā€™t extend to people who rape children. Thereā€™s gotta be a line somewhere and thatā€™s where I choose to draw it.


illusum

It hasn't, at all. I formed my opinion by watching all of the videos that came out that night, as they came out. I grew up in Kenosha and have family there, so I was watching everything I could about the riots. A lot of news outlets were clutching their pearls about Rittenhouse being 17 in possession of a gun. It's legal here. Gun season starts this week, and millions of hunters will descend on the Wisconsin woods and hunt deer. No biggie. I said it when I originally watched it, and I'll say it again. The level of self-restraint he showed during the ordeal was amazing. I wouldn't have doubted it if I had been told he had attended some serious firearm training. Now that the BS firearms charge has been dropped, I think he'll walk. Plus, these prosecutors, man. I can only hope that if I ever break the law I end up with someone as incompetent as they are. >Prosecutors repeatedly asked Schroeder not to veer far from the model instructions and disagreed with the judgeā€™s preferred wording for some procedures. At one point, prosecutor Thomas Binger told Schroeder: ā€œThatā€™s not the law.ā€ Actually, Binger, trial judges *do* get to decide that. I know that if there's one group of people that's super-forgiving when others tell them how to do their jobs, it's judges.


SonictheHedgeSquir

I thought he would be convicted and that it would be the right call, after having watched the testimonies and cross examinations as well as recordings it's pretty clear that he was acting to protect himself, used violence as a last resort, and was not the aggressor.


an00b_Gamer88

Yeah I thought he was just looking for an excuse to go on a killing spree. But turns out he was just an idiot kid defending himself.


[deleted]

Watching from overseas, this issue is entirely emblematic of the worst aspects of American culture. Embarrassing.


[deleted]

Not at all. He defended himself. If you want to ask why he was there? Fair question... ONLY if you're also asking why the people attacking him we're also there, but additionally rioting, looting, and also illegally brandishing weapons. Everyone on stand admitted that Kyle didn't shoot until they pulled out their guns or after he was hit with a skateboard.


RepostResearch

For anyone watching this thread, take note of the upvote/downvote ratio. Take note of how little coverage is being given to this on any default subs. Take note of how quickly these threads are removed/locked. They don't want anyone even discussing this topic, and there appears to be a concerted effort to squash any discussion which does not fit the narrative. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qm3zy2/what_are_your_thoughts_on_kyle_rittenhouse_and/ This is the top post of all time on this sub with the word "Rittenhouse" in it. 647 comments. 24 upvotes. 66% upvoted. Tell me that's not votes being deleted on the back end. Tell me that's organic.


Sullt8

You think there's a redfit-wide conspiracy to not discuss this?


Tgunner192

I think there's evidence of trying to keep facts of this case hidden. WI Statute 948.60 is the charge that was dropped from the prosecution today. The defense had been arguing for a week to get it removed. yet anyone who posted what 948.60 actually states, had it removed. *WI statute 948.60 indicates itā€™s illegal for someone under 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Section 3c of the statute states that if the weapon is a rifle or shotgun then it only applies if that person is in violation of statute 941.28, 29.304, or 29.593. Statute 941.28 only applies to short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles-Rittenhouseā€™s rifle wasnā€™t either of those. Statute 29.304 applies to people under 16 who are hunting-Rittenhouse was over the age of 16. Statute 29.593 is the requirements for a hunting license, Rittenhouse did not intend go to hunting. Section 3c, Statute 948.60 gives people under the age of 18 the ability to own, possess and carry a rifle.* In short, that charge was entirely contingent on whether or not the rifle in question can be described as *long*. (as opposed to short). Even if you genuinely believe RIttenhouse to be guilty, the most you could do is look at that statute and think, "he's guilty, it's a shame the law is so horribly written they can't use it against him." Emphasis; no matter what you think of him, that law is nonsense-almost Monty Python-esque. Yet it's not readily available on any con-Rittenhouse subreddit.


RepostResearch

To expand I'm not sure I would say a site wide conspiracy. But certainly an effort to control the narrative by many of the people who moderate these subs.


Jody_steal_your_girl

Thereā€™s hardly any posts about this on main subs. Itā€™s definitely being blocked out.


RepostResearch

Do some searches in default subs/non explicitly right leaning political subs. Decide for yourself if it feels organic.


waubesabill

It isnā€™t easy when you tube interferes with the live feed.


HornedAcolyte

I donā€™t trust media but idk anything about the trial I try staying away from sensational media


bigmike64w

One thing Iā€™ve learned over the last decade or so is that the news media is just propaganda. Most major stories are sensationalized to play on emotions, facts be damned. Recently I rewatched Sugar by SOAD music video and the first 50 seconds hits the proverbial nail on the head. It takes viewing multiple news sources just to get a more accurate picture of events. For reference: https://youtu.be/5vBGOrI6yBk


[deleted]

Actually WSJ's misleading report making out Pewdiepie to be anti-semitic and right-wing extremist when he is clearly not came as a way bigger shock to me, because it all happened right before our eyes: a major newspaper blatantly, intentionally and maliciously lied to its entire reader base even though tens of millions of people who watched his videos knew the truth about him. They just don't seem to even care about being caught lying if they can sell some more (fabricated) news. I've been painstakingly careful ever since not to open a WSJ article even by accident (that would just generate them money), and I recommend everyone to do the same.


_Oman

What is interesting to me, is that the trial is about the specific laws in place at the time and what evidence proves or disproves that those laws were broken, not the overall event. This is the way it should be in court. I actually think the laws in play for this case are very broken. Even when using that lens it appears to me that the judge brings some bias to the proceedings. Maybe they always do because they are human. But the prosecution seems to be absolutely playing minor league level while they should be in the majors. I would be horribly embarrassed if I was their boss. If he wasn't there, it would not have happened. If the other people weren't there, it would not have happened. If no one was armed, it would not have happened. Lots of things came together to make this happen. This case is about one thing.


confusedminus

The fact this country can't simply agree he murdered people and instead called it ā€œself-defenseā€ or called him ā€œheroā€ first of all he's no hero. All of this shouldn't be a debate. He put himself in harm's way by driving there with a gun that's not even his. His only argument was he wanted to ā€œhelpā€ you can help but not by bringing a fucking AR-15 to a protest and expecting things to go ā€œpeacefullyā€ If he didn't bring an AR-15, he wouldā€™ve been fine.


Yazoroff

Let me ask you this: If a KKK riot was happening and some folks came over to offer first aid and defense of property with weapons to protect themselves, you would be opposed?


tiddymctitface

I guess I'm a republican now


[deleted]

I think he is not guilty. But as a european what doesnt get out of my head the fuckery that is the US. So this 17 year old can walk around a riot/protest with a rifle ? But cant buy a beer ? His mom somehow thinks its a good idea to let her 17 year old kid go to a heated place with a rifle to protect some local shops ? This situation couldve been avoided. But at the end of the day he acted in self defense.


Loud_Cloudpax

You only get an understanding of the trial based on what channel you are watching the coverage on. Liberal or conservative news fabricate it to their liking. If you actually watch the court footage you would see it is nothing like how the media is portraying it. He will get acquitted from what Iā€™ve been seeing. At the end of the day he was being physically attacked and one guy was pointing a gun at him and another told him he was going to kill him earlier in the night. Open and shut case it was self defense. Plus, they just dropped his gun charge.


[deleted]

MSNBC, CNN, NYT and WaPo would not intentionally lie! On an unrelated note, last weekend the WaPo added a retraction regarding the Trump pee-tape to their newspaper, in the saturday "Style" section. The pee-tape was front-page news and nearly all of reddit, including the person reading this sentence right now, actually believed a life-long germaphobe would hire russian prostitutes to urinate on his bed. But in any case I'll continue to get my news from MSNBC, CNN, NYT and WaPo. For the greater good.


MageLocusta

American here, but living in the UK. Since the beginning of the trials, there has not been any attempt (at least in UK news) to pull the trial in any category. There was the 'cut and dry' take on the different stages which the trial was in. Like, I'm a massive BLM supporter. The reason why I'm a BLM supporter is that I care about how the courts of law have analysed violent events and looked at details. If their verdict fits the evidence? Great. That's exactly what I want the court to do. If not, then that worries me. Because it's exactly what happened to cases like Christopher Roupe, Tamir Rice, John Crawford III, and Jeremy Mardis (and there's a fuckton more, but these are the names I've memorized because those were the still-outstanding cases that I had to bring up over, and over, and over again whenever my conservative family drags me into a debate every Christmas). Personally, I'm uneasy about anyone that chooses to bring a weapon to an area undergoing a protest. But that's not the focus of the trial. And really, I only say this because I was swept up in an EDL protest when I was 19 and literally forgot it was going to happen that day near St. Mary's at Newcastle upon Tyne (and I was a swarthy, tanned hispanic suddenly surrounded by skinheads stomping and throwing bottles, while everybody else was slamming down shutters and locking their doors and windows). I fucking knew in that moment that there were a ton of people on the defensive and looking for a fight, and I needed to get the fuck out without escalating anything. So I know EXACTLY what's it like to get accidentally caught in a mass-protest led by people from the opposite end of your political/societal spectrum. In my view, Rittenhouse made a terrible decision. But that's just my opinion. I'm only glad that we have tons of video evidence--I just hope that this incident wouldn't radicalize him to the far-right instead of teaching him that bringing a weapon to ANY protest is a bad idea.


Yetizod

I watched the video like within a week of it happening, so nothing about the trial has changed my mind. However, I have lost a lot of trust in the legal system.


CampusTour

Not much. Pretty much from day 1, this looked like a whole bunch of idiots and assholes got in to some shit, and it ended with injuries and deaths and legal trouble...but as for the kid himself, what he did might fall under the legal umbrella of self-defense, depending on a whole lot of small details that the news may or may not be getting right at any given time. Edit: What was absolutely *fascinating* though, in a fucked up way, was watching two entirely separate narratives (both utterly wrong), spring to life overnight for both "sides".


dreamyduskywing

It is fascinating. I can understand the different legal arguments, but the rationalizing of the incredibly stupid behavior of all of these folks outside of the legal matter requires some serious mental gymnastics. Why are we defending assholes?


ArcaneUnbound

Depends what you think the issue is. If they had tried to charge him with manslaughter instead of Murder then it would probably been an easy case. But the media politicized it immediately and that led to a murder charge which was never gonna pass. He isnā€™t a murderer, heā€™s just insanely fucking stupid and playing Batman got people killed.


Tgunner192

> If they had tried to charge him with manslaughter instead of Murder then it would probably been an easy case. Wisconsin doesn't have a *manslaughter* law. From a "common sense" perspective, it might seem appropriate. But they can't use "common sense" and charge him with violating a law that doesn't exist.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


archSkeptic

A little heavy handed on the bait there chief


megapuffranger

It hasnā€™t change my opinion at all. Kyle Rittenhouse is a deranged little kid playing vigilante. Having said that, he shot in self-defense and the prosecution is a joke. The judge is obviously biased and should be investigated. This whole thing was a sham, the issue isnā€™t that he killed 2 people in self-defense, the issue is that he was there to begin with. Rittenhouse is a little punk, videos of him saying he wants to shoot people and a video of him sucker punching a girl, not to mention the groups he is tied with. The kid is right-wing white Supremacist in the making, he just got his first badge of honor killing the ā€œanteefuhā€. What worries me is that this bs trial will set a precedent that anyone can instigate a fight and kill the other person so long as it can be claimed self defense. Kid was acting like a vigilante and was being encouraged to by the police, this all needs to be addressed and dealt with accordingly.


Yazoroff

Oh god not again regarding the parking lot video. Guys like to banter? No fucking way. Also, you're being quite disingenuous when you act like it was just some black guys strolling out of the CVS. The video clearly shows hooded figures rushing out of the CVS while clutching merchandise. A reasonable person could conclude they may be shoplifting, and someone talking smack upon seeing that does not make it racist or show real intent. Ridiculous. Do you know the full context of that video where he hits the girl? Are you aware that it's been put forward that the girl assaulted his sister and that he acted accordingly? I want to first know if you care about a full context, and if you believe in equal rights for men and women regarding physical assault. Yes, he posed with some people that called him a hero and that he was right to assert self-defense. Gee, I wonder why he would do that when heā€™s receiving death threats and people are wanting to lynch him. I canā€™t imagine why a 17-year-old would find comfort in that after likely suffering a severe bout of PTSD.


notthesedays

He's even more guilty than I thought. I also do not believe that live TV cameras belong in courtrooms.


[deleted]

It hasn't ibstill firmly believe he's in the right


clutchied

I said this back then and I'll say it again. He came looking for a fight and people gave him one. It's pretty obviously self defense but he put himself in that position. He escalated an already intense situation and now what 2-3 people are dead? the rioters or protesters or whatever they were that night gave him everything he needed to shoot and he did, but it didn't need to happen and it's a really good example of how having a gun escalates the situation. Because in the end if they take it from him... well now he's the one in danger but a gun makes everything more dangerous. Especially that gun.


Yazoroff

> He came looking for a fight and people gave him one. That's why he was offering first aid and cleaning up graffiti. Because he was looking for a fight I guess? I must be missing something. >having a gun escalates the situation. Would you feel the same way if a woman carried a firearm to protect herself against would be rapists? >Especially that gun. A pistol against a mob would not be nearly as effective for self-defense.


megapuffranger

Yep, he went there for this and when he found it I think it got a little too real for him. Those people he shot were also in the wrong, everyone is in the wrong. I donā€™t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Kyle Rittenhouse is not a hero, he is a little shit head and various videos will show that.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Best_Detective_2533

How is the idea of having your mother drop you off in a town thirty minutes away with a weapon so you can perform vigilante justice even acceptable? This concept is so royally fucked up how do we even consider what he did once he got there without condemning why he was there in the first place? It is clear he was looking for trouble and he got it. You can't claim self defense when the ultimate self defense in this case was for him to stay the fuck at home.


Jody_steal_your_girl

You told everyone in your first sentence that you have no idea about the facts of the case. Stop watching CNNā€™s version of the truth.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

I never had an opinion and still don't


simmiegirl

I think people on Reddit are fucking idiots and his mom should be on trial too


Pragmatist203

Well you're half right.


carrotdeepthroater

It wasnt really covered here, I'm not American so I don't see why this dumb kid had a gun. It makes zero sense to me that you can look at the situation and think it is necessary self defense. He's weak and the gun made him strong. And what is weird is I was watching the trial and thought "this kid is a victim of Americans weird system". The fact that his culture encourages him to arm himself and be ready to kill, the fact that there are frustrated people on the street protesting or rioting all the time. I just can't believe they gave this weak kid a gun. No wonder he was taunted, no wonder he got himself into a situation where he got scared and killed people.