What Do You Think?


If you haven’t already heard/read about the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, then I suggest you do some Google-type research. 

For those of you who ARE familiar with the name and the associated offenses … this post is for you.

As a refresher: Rittenhouse faces five felony charges and a misdemeanor weapons charge for killing two individuals and wounding a third during a protest in Wisconsin. If he is convicted of the most serious charge against him, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison. 

Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday, the 15th. The final jury members will be selected and will, most likely, begin deliberations on Tuesday. (Added note: there is still some discussion related to some lesser charges which the judge is considering over the weekend and will announce his decision on Monday.)

So where do you stand? Should Kyle Rittenhouse be found Guilty or Not Guilty? Do you see him as an armed vigilante who should definitely be sent to prison? Or was he simply a misguided kid trying to defend himself? Or perhaps something in-between?

My personal opinion? No matter the circumstances, two people DIED at the hands of a 17-year-old kid using a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle. While I hesitate condemning him to life in prison because of his age, I do not feel he should be allowed to walk away scot-free.

105 thoughts on “What Do You Think?

  1. Hello Nan. He shouldn’t have been there. He was acting like a pompous jerk trying to wield an authority he did not have but felt emboldened by the gun he carried. He felt like he was more than a 17 year old kid, he was part of something big and powerful.

    Punishment. Yes he has to be punished. But first. He was being chased by a man angry that the boy had tried to order him around, a man by all reports already angry and argumentative with others. Even then I think there is the point he put himself in danger by going there with an illegal weapon after he told friends he wanted to shoot looters, so he was looking for a fight. He wanted to be the good guy with a gun, the Clint Eastwood to the rescue. He acted like a stupid kid fed lies and misinformation, he acted immaturely. I say this to answer the question of the post.

    He killed two people. Yet will prison make him a better person? Our system is designed to be punitive and vengeful. It is not rehabilitative. However there must be a cost for the taking of lives. I would suggest a local jail of detention on the weekends, it has been used before for other things and it keeps him out of the prison population under the control of local police. I suggest strict probation with requirements for mental health counseling and education and or employment. There can be other conditions such as not associating with white supremacist gangs or militias. Even no drugs or alcohol. How long these conditions / probation should continue I don’t know, how much time is a life worth?

    My point is ruining this kid wont help the country, wont bring back those he killed. Destroying him just loses one more life. If he gets off he will struggle to rise above the hate and anger of the proud boys groups that support him now. Hugs

    Liked by 12 people

    • How much time is a life worth?

      Scottie, I have to disagree with your sentencing recommendations. Every action he has taken has been premeditated. Any other person with the same actions and we would be discussing either life in prison or a death sentence. I can’t muster up any sympathy for him. His mother should be on trial for allowing him to purchase the weapon plus aiding and abetting. During his “breakdown” he squinched his eyes three or four times, but never succeeded in pushing out a tear.


      If we have ‘other’ people committing the same act as white supremacists, then we need to have a separate system of justice for each. Trump does not see anything wrong with people coming from all over the country to take part in his attempted coup. All white supremacists are identified as patriots while Black, Brown, Asian, LGBTQ+, and liberals are violent protestors.

      Rittenhouse will most likely be acquitted. A short time in the county jail, maybe, on one of the lesser charges.

      His punishment should be no more nor any less severe than any other ethnic group in the same situation.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Hello Cagjr. I agree we do not want separate justice systems where one group has an automatic out from responsibility for their actions. All should be equal under the law. However we have a system that is supposed to take individual aspects of each case under consideration. We do not hold a person with limited mental / reasoning abilities to the same standards we do those of normal reasoning ability.

        My issue is with the premeditation and Rittenhouse’s ability to understand where the actions he was taking at each step would lead him. Yes he did the crime, and yes his actions put him there. He is responsible for that. My point is until he was faced with someone that wouldn’t back down like he assumed they would, who bristled at his assumed authority instead of obeying him as he thought they would, until he was running away did he realize what reality he was in. For him up to that point it was a fun game boosting his ego and making him feel part of the hero crowd. From what I have read of Rittenhouse’s teen years he was an immature kid with limited intelligence who had few friends and sought the approval of adults in groups of power, such as the police and militias. He had dropped out or was removed from school and was intermittently homeschooled. I see a kid emotionally a lot younger and socially dysfunctional. I admit I could be reading him wrong. It is clear he has been well coached in what to say and how to act in court and on the stand. His pretend crying was a rehearsed act, and from what I have read his answers to questions are almost rote textbook responses. Has he grown up some in the last year? Maybe. How do you see him? Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

    • Well said, Scotty, but the last sentence of your comment strikes me as a wishful leap of faith. He could just as well feel he “got away with murder” and become the adult version of the 17 year old kid that did so.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hello mistermuse. I agree. I think it was badly written on my part. What I was trying to express is he is now the darling of the right wing. If acquitted I don’t think he will be able to get away from the mind set and actions of that group. Because they have made a hero out of him and he seems to crave that attention. Hugs

        Liked by 2 people

        • It is for this reason that I criticized the mass media – what is called the ‘mainstream media’ (MSM) – in general (remember the argument you had with A Ghost Dancer over what really went down with the Covington students in Washington). So it’s not a partisan criticism I am raising; I think there’s a pretty strong case to be made that both the Left and the Right are creating a false narrative here like they did there (Rittenhouse as the worst of the worst from the Progressives, the best of the best from the far Right) and what seems to be lost in all the yelling is what’s actually true, what actually happened and the actual circumstances in which they happened.

          As far as I can tell nothing but tragedy comes out of rioting and burning and looting versus civilian militias (or police for that matter) trying to counter it. The least we can do I think is stay true to the principles involved like due process and figuring out motivation and honest intent in order to try to understand how such tragedies come about and what can we do better to avoid them from happening again, to other victims and perpetrators? That’s what I think is being lost here: an opportunity to do better as we see this battle over which narrative is going to win. I care about real people and not the ideological narratives they’ve been unwillingly or unwittingly cast.


        • Hello Tildeb. I disagree with you.
          Yes the media has biases, mostly corporate, but also the person delivering the news / interviews has lived experiences which can cause bias. The better ones try to understand their bias and make it as neutral as possible, and the viewer can see which ones are basically opinion hosts.

          But it is up to the viewer to use their reason and to try to get more than one or two sources of an event to best judge it. I think civil discussion listening to what others are expressing is also key to understanding an event as each of us has our biases.
          However your classification of how each group sees Rittenhouse is also biased as is your view of the BLM protestors IMO as someone on the very progressive side of the political spectrum. I do not think you are the only one who cares about people, but that includes the people shot as well as what happens to Rittenhouse.

          Due process in the US works only for a few and depends on wealth, skin color, and connections to those in power of the person needing the due process. Plus reordering society to fix the situation that caused this was not the point of the post as I read it. I know several things that Nan dislikes is getting too far off topic and endless arguments that spiral into nowhere. She has had to ask me a few times to correct myself here. I honor her requests as best I can so I will avoid a discussion on the side issues until she posts on them. Until then best wishes and be well. Hugs

          Liked by 3 people

    • I like your comment scotty and I do not think in the way the world is today giving him anything less than full time prison for a very long time will deter others to do the same thing. That is the idea of punishment I believe, as there are a lot of young guys who have lethal weapons and watch Rambo movies.

      I feel the US government has wrecked this boys life as he may become a hardened criminal in jail until he is released as an old man because they allow these idiots to walk around public streets like their violent hero’s and there is no regulations on who can buy a lethal firearm.

      If you walk around the streets in my town even with a plastic gun you will be arrested and may be charged as if it was a real gun depending on what you did with it. Kids do not have realistic cowboy guns anymore.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Hello Sklyjd. Yes there was no win here for anyone. Everyone including society lost. Even if Rittenhouse is found not guilty of all charges he still will lose I think. I doubt he has much of a future either way. Lives lost, people injured, what a waste, and nothing learned from it by the people involved. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi, this is probably the most important point at which the US needs to see clearly the damage caused by gun culture. People died because of the gun Rittenhouse carried, his life will be ruined because of it. He is though a white supremacist though so don’t be fooled by the act and crocodile tears. Murder is murder, the provacation has not been proven and after he killed he rejoiced in his act. He is though a victim of a gun addicted society that had overseen the deaths of many young people in schools and countless others over decades. Australia only needed one event to outlaw gun ownership unless licensed for good reasons ie farming I believe. Citizens do not needs guns for general use especially assault rifles. But people won’t listen and so countless more will die because of this. Rittenhouse must get life as a minimum or it will be a mockery of those who died. The same right wing thugs killed a young woman at Charlottesville I believe at a similar type occurrence. The left may create an environment that can spill into violence but the blood is always on the hands of those on the right. This must end now. Gun control is the only answer but it will not happen, because there is too much money in the arms trade and too many of those who are in power benefitting from it, meanwhile innocent people will continue to die as a consequence. 🙏 Faux

    Liked by 9 people

  3. This ‘story’ reminds me of how wrong the media was ‘reporting’ on those Covington boys at the Lincoln Memorial High School (how much WAS the final settlement paid by the media after the boys reputations were collectively destroyed in the media frenzy?). And it shows me that the media is doing it again, replacing what’s true – as if the judicial system we have for finding out what is true is entirely insufficient – with an established narrative that helps sell the media’s ‘reporting’ to their followers.

    It looks to me like he should be found guilty only on the lesser charges. He was acting in self defense when he killed two and wounded one. At least, that’s what the survivor admits and the fullvideos show (not the edited video used by media to presume guilt).

    But the mandatory riot that will follow (even though this was white on white violence) might sway the jury to avoid social media vilification and sacrifice Rittenhouse anyway. That’s what I think will happen. I hope I’m wrong.

    Liked by 4 people

      • Here (I think). It was part of the trial.

        There’s a media pattern here where the narrative being widely reported and re-reported precedes the gathering of facts and is often in conflict with them. This is very concerning to me… not because of this particular trial but as a matter of trust being broken between people and the mainstream media.

        I want to think mainstream media reports after gathering information that is then fact-checked to ensure accuracy but I’m not seeing this… in story after story after story.

        The testimony in court in this case clearly does not reflect what we’re being told by multiple news outlets in every form (radio, TV, newsprint, social media). In other words, I think we’re being fed a narrative and getting all riled up when the two don’t match. That’s when the blame game and conspiracy elements come out and claim the judge is biased, or systemic racism is on display, or the jury isn’t impartial, or whatever.

        This seems to me to be a pattern when the very first concern should be but seems missing in action these days is, ‘What is true and how can we find out?’ Even if I don’t like what is true, even if I find out I have made an opinion that is wrong, I still think this principle, of respecting what is true first and foremost, should take precedence over everything else and then form my opinions not prior to but after this determination no matter how uncomfortable it may make me feel.

        In this case, Rittenhouse has a solid case for self defense. And I’m not alone; this thread demonstrates what a respected old school journalist has found, too.

        Liked by 1 person

        • HA! I can always count on your taking the road not traveled, tildeb. 😎

          In any case, while I have reservations about the overall news media reporting (especially these days), I don’t see that the “respected old school journalist” reasoning is any more valid. And I wonder what difference is there in you agreeing with what he has to say and what you accuse others of doing when they believe the “mainstream media”?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Short answer: I actually listen to family and friends in different states who explain why have voted Republican. And their reasons often lead me to read and listen to sources completely divorced from mainstream media but with facts and figures worth considering. The Covington case is a perfect example.

          Liked by 1 person

        • often lead me to read and listen to sources completely divorced from mainstream media

          Relying only on left-wing sources for news is very dangerous. It’s not that they lie about things exactly, it’s that they don’t report things that don’t fit the narrative. Real right-wing sites often massively distort things, so anything you find out about from them needs to be double-checked, but at least you may become aware of something you wouldn’t otherwise have known about at all — and there are specialized sites that don’t fall into the “left” or “right” categories at all.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Indeed; If the law is strictly followed, all is exactly as you say — so shouldn’t we be asking questions about how well American self-defence laws are written? Shouldn’t there be some sort of provisions to discourage children from entering certain sorts of dangerous situations, including riots?

      Liked by 2 people

      • In my limited experience, Americans and their guns have a relationship that is one of one. I’ve never encountered such a deified ‘right’ held by so many about something that causes so much harm. It’s truly a mystery to me in this day and age.

        Liked by 5 people

  4. If Rittenhouse had lived in Kenosha, I might have a different reaction. But he drove there from some distance away, and was obviously looking to cause trouble.

    To me, the judge seems biased (i.e. favoring Rittenhouse).

    Liked by 10 people

    • Absolutely the judge is biased!! Plus, he’s playing to the cameras.

      IMO, where he lived doesn’t enter into the picture. He KILLED two people. AND of all the people that were there, he was the only one who did. In fact, I don’t think anyone else even fired a weapon, but I could be wrong about that.

      Liked by 9 people

  5. Rittenhouse comes across like an immature well-coached (by his attorney) Macho shithead who probably sees that having an AR15, considered cool, is like having second penis. He went looking for trouble nd got more than he bargained for. Prison time will help him to reflect on his life and that of others.

    Liked by 9 people

  6. The actual shootings seem like a fairly open-and-shut case of self-defense. Regardless of why he was there in the first place, if somebody is trying to hit you on the head with a skateboard, you’re going to use whatever options are available to stop him. Regardless of why he was there in the first place, there’s no scenario in which it would have been reasonable to expect him to just stand there and let himself be killed without fighting back.

    I’d certainly be open to taking a different position based on new facts about what happened (as opposed to rhetoric about him being a Bad Person or about guns being a Bad Thing), but it looks like most people’s minds are already firmly made up. If he’s convicted for the killings, the right wing will denounce it as an outrage regardless of what new facts came out in the trial. If he’s completely exonerated, the left wing will denounce it as an outrage regardless of what new facts came out in the trial. In the latter case, there may also be riots, which the activist left will be unable to unequivocally denounce, resulting in an increase in votes for Republican candidates next year.

    The most likely outcome is a conviction on the weapons charge (where Rittenhouse did unambiguously break the law) and acquittal on the charges related to the shootings, since courts are supposed to go by the facts of the case and not by who is outraged and who is throwing what insults at whom. There have, of course, been threats made against the jurors, which could affect the verdict. And conviction on anything, unless the sentence is negligible, will surely result in an appeal.

    Liked by 3 people

    • We have already seen the judge show his bias. He throttles the prosecution and smothers facts pertaining to the case.

      None of the protesters went to find Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, a citizen of Ilinois has no authority to defend the property of anyone in Kenosha, yet he testified that was the reason he was there.

      In any other case, someone trying to disarm a shooter would be hailed as a hero. But here, the victims are considered guilty of assault.

      He should receive a life sentence with no opportunity for parole, which would put him on par with many 17 year-olds already doing life.

      Liked by 7 people

    • “The most likely outcome is a conviction on the weapons charge (where Rittenhouse did unambiguously break the law)”

      Actually that is very doubtful if you look only at Wisconsin state law. And if I understand right, only Wisconsin laws apply in this particular trial because the feds haven’t formally brought any charges against him. In Wisconsin it both is and is not illegal for someone over the age of 16 to have a rifle or shotgun in his possession. Laws to protect the rights of hunters specifically give someone over the age of 16 the right to carry a firearm. Technically this was intended to apply to legitimate hunting situations only. But I’m told that the law is so badly written that it could be interpreted to apply in almost any situation. If he’s convicted on a weapons possession charge based on his age, it would almost certainly be overturned in an appeals court because of conflicting and badly written state laws.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Interesting — thanks for the clarification. I suppose this raises the possibility that if he’s fully acquitted, the feds might bring separate federal charges for the same crimes — though again, it’s hard to imagine them prevailing if they did so (except on the weapons charge) given the facts of the case.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Unless the legal system is going to take the position that a person about to be hit on the head with a skateboard is legally obligated to just stand there and let his skull get bashed in (which strikes me as unlikely), this probably means a full acquittal. Watch for several days of rioting in blue-state cities, accompanied by local authorities dithering and fiddle-faddling, followed by a passel of voters switching to Republican in disgust.


        • Probably because … defense lawyers successfully argued that a loophole in Wisconsin’s law allows minors to possess guns with barrels 16 inches or longer.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Infidel, I understand your point and yes, some type of defense would definitely be expected and enacted. But the thing is — if Rittenhouse had not been carrying a gun, would the end result have been the same?

          I realize that my scenario is, unfortunately, not the one that existed. Nevertheless, does shooting and killing someone truly offer the best recourse?

          Liked by 1 person

        • If he hadn’t had a gun, he would probably have been killed. So in this case, shooting the attacker was the least-bad option. Any time somebody is shot, the possibility obviously exists that the person will die.

          This is not the scenario that usually happens in cases of self-defense with guns — in the vast majority of cases in which a person successfully defends himself or herself using a gun, the gun is not fired. Simply aiming it at the attacker is enough to deter the attack. In this case, however, the attackers could already see that Rittenhouse was armed, yet they were not deterred. So there really was no other option but to shoot.

          Again, for all the side discussion about why he went there and what kind of person he is, etc, there is no credible argument that a person being attacked in a way that could cause serious injury or death, does not have a right to act in self-defense, including using lethal violence in self-defense, if the situation allows no other plausible option. That’s what this ultimately boils down to.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Most people expected that after looking at Wisconsin’s firearms laws. The law giving those under 18 the right to carry a gun was written specifically for hunting purposes only but it was so badly written and so vague that it would never have stood up.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Rittenhouse went to where he knew he would find trouble armed and looking to use the assault rifle he was carrying on his person. More troubling is his mum dropped him off so should be in the dock too for aiding and abetting. If Rittenhouse gets off it sends a signal to others to do likewise in future. Social media won’t sacrifice him, though some may judge him and some may glorify his actions. Truth is he sacrificed himself when he killed two people in cold blood. Skin colour and faith were not his concern. His actions were premeditated and the act he put on in court was shameful.

    Liked by 6 people

    • From my personal perspective, you pretty well summed things up.

      The thing that I keep coming back to is WHY did he go there in the first place? My thinking is he hoped to join the group of vigilantes that had arrived on the scene, fully armed and ready to “protect.” He no doubt had read/heard about them and believed in his immature mind that he could be “one of them.”

      To me, the bare facts are this: He had no business going there in the first place. He had no business carrying a gun, much less an AR-15 rifle. He KILLED two people and wounded (intent to kill) a third person.

      The thing is … no one will ever know the motivations behind the actions of the two men that were killed. Some have said Kyle shot in self-defense … but one wonders why an unarmed person would attack another one who obviously has a gun?

      As for his actions at the trial? He’s clearly a puppet of the defense team.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. He is guilty of killing two people..period. His mother is an accomplice to murder as well as driving an underage individual across state lines with perhaps, an illegal weapon( not sure of the state laws) but definitely a weapon that was probably not registered by an individual under the conceal carry laws of their state.
    What was this poor representation of a mother thinking! He could have been killed..her own son..did that not matter to her?
    Idiots abound. The judge is more than biased. It’s a joke and he will get off scot-free..plus it will open the door to even more white on black violence. It’s a bad omen for the future.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. First, I dislike and am uncomfortable with ever charging a young person who’s under 18 as an adult. That said, he did seem to have the intent to hunt people. I too am able to, reasonably or not, see a glimmer of a possibility that he was truly defending himself. I don’t know what I’d do if I was on the jury (likely I’d have been dismissed before the trial because I’m uncomfortable with charging a minor as an adult.) The trouble with answering these questions is that we don’t get all and only the evidence the jury receives to take into deliberation. We know more here, less there, and we see and hear a great deal they’re not allowed to consider even if they saw/heard it, too.
    I’d like to see his mother in deep trouble for endangering him, and for aiding and abetting him. I also feel he needs care and treatment within the juvenile justice system. He strikes me as sociopathic, and now he’s an adult.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. This has not been widely reported here in Finland, but I am curious. According to what I have read about the case before and now, I wonder if Rittenhouse is being charged for terrorism and if not, why not? He seems to have had a political motivation to go out with a rifle to a demonstration. Was his purpose to simply scare demonstrators, or actually kill them? Either way, it seems his goal was to terrorize the demonstrators with a lethal weapon. Even if he never thought of it in those terms and only wanted to help out and protect the property of some innocent victims from the extreme anger and frustration shown by the demonstrators. What did he (or his mom) expected to happen, when a kid wielding a gun shows up in a demonstration? That he saves some property by showing off the gun and then returning a hero safely from this field trip?

    It is easy to fall in thinking that terrorists are some evil foreign people with different perplexion and totally alien mindsets, but each and every one of them are just disturbed individuals in a voulnerable situation, that someone else used for their own political agenda, or who got seriously influenced by someones political agenda. Many of them are young people, who see the world and morals as very black and white and have been given a cultural model where violence, or the representations of violence are the only/best options to act.

    If the people see legal system as a punitive and vendictive mechanism, rather than as a mechanism to heal the society and prisons as punishments for the wrongdoers, rather than as “correctional facilities”, or at very least some sort of storages for people, who are dangerous to others, it distorts the expectations of any legal case. Especially, if the offender is very young. Vengeance is a very primitive animal instinct to correct injustices and for any human society, it does not go very far to repair the damage done.

    It seems to me, that behind the events that lead to this, is a deep mistrust to the US police citizens there present constantly. For some reason Rittenhause did not trust the police to do their job properly and felt he had to join in without any authorization from the police in protection of life and property from the fury of the demonstrators. What ever other motives he had and has confessed to, this seems like a baseline for what he alledgedly was doing there with his gun in the public space. What a failure by the police, that they did not disarm him before he in his desperation killed people.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I have already told Nan my thoughts elsewhere, but I am in total agreement that he should not end up in jail. The thing is, jails do not rehabilitate, and as you said, they punish. In my opinion, punishment does nothing to prevent or correct stupidity. I believe in retributive justice, or having the crime committer have to do something to repay the victims or, in this case, the victims’ families for their losses. Let him have his life, but take away a good half or more of what he earns, or comes to him through other sources including “funding sources,” which should then be used to help those people he directly affected.
      I do not think this just for this crime, but all crimes.
      If you want to “lock this boy up,” then put him in a mental hospital where he can get help for his obvious social deviancy. To be an average sane citizen is not to go out with a weapon to “protect property” to the point of harming people. I do not know his true background, but obviously his mother needs help too, and her views probably helped form Rittenjouse’s views. She too should be put in a mental institution for social deviants. Both of them can stay there until they are no longer threats to other people.
      Certainly, however it all went down (do we have anyone’s testimony of what happened that night besides his own warped view), Rittenhouse should not have been there, nor should he have been there with weapon. This is an act of insanity! But even so, it is an act he cannot be allowed to return to normal society for until he accepts responsibility for his wrongful actions. To allow him back into normal society scot free is to ensure a greater tragedy ahead.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. Once I become King of ‘Murica and make it illegal for people on the streets NOT to be armed with an assault rifle of some sort, such cases will be easier to litigate. Why? Well, because if EVERYONE had a rifle in this case, EVERYONE would have been shooting at EVERYONE else and EVERYONE would now be dead. Thus, there would be no one to charge with anything as they would all have simply been following my law that EVERYONE must be armed at all times. God bless ‘Murica! God bless assault rifles, and God bless you if you’ve just sneezed! $Amen$

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Please forgive me for using this phrase but it seems appropriate in this situation, but this whole trial has been a sh*tshow from the beginning and in any rational universe a mistrial should have been declared long ago. We have a judge who should have been booted off the bench, an inept prosecutorial team… well the list goes on and on. Remember this is a judge who has ordered the prosecutors to not call the victims “victims” but at the same time allows the defense to call the victims “rioters” and “looters”. That alone is so glaringly prejudicial in favor of the defense that the prosecutors should have immediately filed for a mistrial and demanded a new judge.

    I’ll go out on a limb and predict that he will get off on all, or almost all, charges. At least the more serious ones. A lot is going to depend on the judge’s final instructions to the jury and what charges he will permit the jury to consider.

    A lot has been made of Rittenhouse’s motivations, why he went to Kenosha, his relationships with racist organizations, etc. But ultimately even racists still have rights, including the right to defend oneself. When it comes to the murder charge what matters is what happened *only* at the time of the shooting. The question is going to be was Rittenhouse in a situation at that time and only at that time, when a reasonable person would believe that he or she was in danger of being physically harmed unless they used their gun. And I think the jury will believe the defense’s claims that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. At least when it comes to the more serious charges.

    Liked by 4 people

    • That’s probably the reality of the situation. A lot of people seem to think the legal system has a general-purpose “yeah, but he’s a bad person / has bad opinions so he should be convicted anyway regardless of the facts” clause, then they act surprised when that doesn’t happen.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Racists may have rights, but when you purposely put yourself into a position of self-danger, you cannot hide behind the laws for self-defence. This “boy” went looking for trouble, hoping to bag himself a couple of human trophies. HIS GUN WAS LOADED! Can any reasonable person say he carried a loaded gun to a dangerous situation without intent to discharge said gun? His defence is a farce, the judge is a farce, and probably the jury’s decision will be a farce. HUMANITY IS ON TRIAL HERE. At the very least, as I said above, he is criminally insane, and should be found so. To let him walk free condemns humanity itself to be insane.

      Liked by 4 people

        • Hello Nan. One of the things the prosecution wanted to use that the judge refused to let them present was that Rittenhouse did tell a friend he wanted to shoot looters. In his mind theft was a capital offence, maybe because it seems he and his mother were right wing media watchers. So to him the protestors were lotters, rioters wanting to destroy good peoples stuff, and basically bad people.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Well, I also said it seemed that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha with the intent to hunt people, so rawgod’s phrasing would be the natural outcome. I read here every time I get a notif., but comment rarely, so my opinion of comments means nothing, but FWIW, rawgod’s phrasing doesn’t strike me as offensive. I’m glad you each keep doing what you’re doing!

          Liked by 2 people

        • It doesn’t seem to be related to reality but related to a how he wants to think about it in the form of a story he believes is true. I am much more concerned with what IS true because I know my opinions suffer greatly when I believe IN what I want to believe ABOUT. These are not the same. So I try to use reality as the basic unit on which to then build an opinion (which means the opinion is only as good as what informs it and subject to change if better information comes along).

          Liked by 1 person

        • OK. But this one of mine was only to sorta back up rawgod in his about the trophies, because Rittenhouse has been quoted as saying his intent was to go hunting. I don’t recall where; also, it wasn’t admitted at trial, so it’s not pertinent to a jury decision, as was mentioned a bit above this.
          I love your avatar!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Ali — I understood the intent behind rawgod’s words … I just thought the phrasing was a bit over-the-top — bagging human trophies??? It reminded me of what hunters do when they go after big game animals!

          And please know I definitely appreciate you adding your thoughts/comments. That’s what makes blogs interesting! 😊

          Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t know what you’re talking about. It seems to have nothing to do with reality. Here’s a pretty good (but long) piece reminding us of the actual context in which Rittenhouse played his small part. Casting him like a 2D character in a movie might make some feel good about declaring how terrible this kid is, but it does not serve what’s true.


      • Rawgod, I agree, but I’m looking at this from the point of view of the law and the court system. You and I would argue that the fact he was there, under those conditions, carrying a loaded firearm, for the reasons he gave, makes him morally responsible for what happened. He never should have been there in the first place, he never should have had that rifle, and the decisions he made makes him ultimately responsible for what occurred. But when looked at from a purely legal point of view, it is entirely possible he will get away with a claim of self defense.

        Liked by 3 people

  13. As long as people excuse murder, then it will carry on. The fact people try to defend what he did shows the problem is deep rooted. If it were a family member of theirs Rittenhouse had killed they’d be singing a different tune. It’s no about revenge it’s about justice and paying for taking a life.

    Liked by 3 people

    • No, I don’t think so. If a family member went out looting and burning and attacking armed people, I don’t think I’d be overly surprised or outraged to find out he or she was shot and killed.


  14. If the kid’s mother is a smoker perhaps it might simply be best if she was offered a cigarette and a nice sunny wall to stand up against while she smoked it?

    As I read this post – and no, although I have seen this nob’s face all over the place I have not bothered to do the Googly thing – I was trying to remember what I was up to at 17.
    I was an apprentice hairdresser and my free time was spent at music gigs and clubs where rock bands were playing whenever the opportunity presented itself. I went to quite a lot! And sneaking into the occasional pub for a pint. Oh, And girls, of course!
    For some really strange reason guns never featured at all, and I usually went out of my way to avoid trouble.
    Americans … what an odd nation!

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’m pretty sure I read something about Rittenhouse was given the weapon once he arrived at the mustering location. But I could be wrong here, too. If you do find out which is true, I’d like to know.


        • After looking further, I’m as confused as you are. I did see it said he may have aquired the weapon in Wisconsin. Everything I’ve heard (and we know the value in that) was that he brought it with him.

          Regardless of how the weapon got into his hands, his intent, from where I’m sitting is still a kid with dreams of being a justified vigilante, who indeed got what he was looking for.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Thanks for this, shell.

          The part I had read was that Rittenhouse and the gun met up at the car dealership he and others were going to protect that night… with the permission and thanks of the owner of that dealership. (Ownership of that gun wasn’t at issue.) Remember, other car dealerships in the same area were torched the night before and the police were obviously unable to protect property. It’s also my understanding that police were well aware of these civilian militia groups at various sites and some thanked them for this armed support. In other words, it’s not like Rittenhouse acted on a whim or alone or decided to go head hunting one nice summer evening. I suspect he really did feel like he was doing his civic duty that so many others were not willing to do. This is a little bit of the context of why this kid was where he was, armed as he was, and I think this matters a very great deal figuring out criminal intent.


  15. Just an update from here in Wisconsin. It’s the evening of Nov. 15 as I write this and everyone is very, very nervous right now as they prepare to send this to the jury. The governor has already put 500 national guard on alert and supposedly they’re already staging, plus the Kenosha police department has been supposedly in contact with every law enforcement agency in the area to help if needed.

    I have friends living in that area and they’ve been telling me that a lot of people from out of town started arriving in the area, including persons from organizations from both the left and the right. I don’t know if that’s true or not but as of right now a lot of people down there are really scared of what’s going to happen after the verdict whether he’s acquitted or convicted. We’re all hoping nothing violent will happen but this has the potential of turning really serious really fast.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. If you go somewhere with a loaded weapon obviously you intend to use it and become brave and stupid. The fact is this young guy could have just simply avoided the treatment if he had not had a weapon and simply could have easily ran away from his attackers and therefore I find it hard to believe he would have been killed.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. So if I follow the logic, If you come across a man with a gun shooting people in a crowd, do not try to stop him since he has a right to defend himself by shooting you and you are wrong for attacking him in the first place.

    Well that’s what I gather from what transpired in this case.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Hence the need for a fair trial and allowing the facts to come out BEFORE mass condemnation. I just wish the MSM would follow this path rather than come out with a narrative that only makes this process harder to accomplish.


  18. Now seeing a report that the verdict is being held up by two jurors who are afraid to vote for acquittal due to fear of mob violence against themselves and their families. Yes, it’s a conservative journalist, but in view of the explicit threats against the jury which I already linked to, it’s all too plausible.

    So that’s what we’ve come to — a potential legal lynching of a defendant the jury knows damn well should be acquitted on grounds of self-defense, due to fear of mob violence.

    If this is true, the judge should really declare a mistrial and set Rittenhouse free. It would be the only principled option, and would probably remove the danger to the jurors since they would not have been the ones to make the decision. Of course, the judge and his family would then be in danger, but at this point that’s probably inevitable no matter what he does.


    • I agree that a mistrial should be declared if jury members are afraid of violence or have had threats uttered against them. The jury somehow being “tainted” by threats or other methods is one of the reasons why we have mistrial laws on the books. But enough other things have gone on in this trial as well, at least from what I’ve seen, to indicate that there should be other reasons for declaring a mistrial as well.

      But a mistrial wouldn’t automatically set Rittenhouse free. That simply means that something occurred during the trial that somehow taints the verdict of the jury. The prosecutor, defense, judge, a jury member or others involved in the trial did something that was deliberately misleading, demonstrably false, or otherwise said or did something that would taint the verdict of a jury. In most cases the prosecution has the option of simply doing it all over again with a new jury and possibly a different judge. Rittenhouse would probably remain out on bail under the current conditions while the whole thing would be done all over again. The prosecution could possibly simply drop charges, but a mistrial doesn’t mean he is simply released.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I notice your “source” is an individual on Twitter. Did you notice that one of the comments asked this: how would a US Marshal know what’s going on inside a jury room in a state courthouse? And there were others who expressed similar thoughts.

      I fail to comprehend how you see Rittenhouse as acting in self-defense. PERHAPS in one of the shootings, but not both. Also, the fact that he simply “walked away” from the scene and, from what I’ve read, even went home and slept in his own bed that night seems to indicate to me he had no real sense of what he had done.

      But this is why I wrote this post. I was interested in how people saw the incident.


      • He walked towards the police, stopped in front of them, and raised his hands in surrender. The police then just went by him. He clearly wasn’t trying to avoid arrest.


        • The police had no idea that he was the shooter at this point in time. And walking up to them with his hands up could have meant to them that he was an individual who simply wanted to be sure they knew he wasn’t one of the troublemakers.


      • One of them was trying to grab his gun and another was trying to hit him with a skateboard, a weapon which could cause serious injury. In that situation, it makes no difference why he was there originally or whether he was a bad, bad person or whatever. Shooting the attackers was an open-and-shut case of self-defense. Zero ambiguity.


        • The question the becomes how much or little you trust the jury. And if you were on it and thought self-defense was justified, how concerned would you be going home after a Not Guilty verdict. How telling is that about what’s going on?


        • I’m NOT on the jury so your question is moot. And whether I “trust the jury” has no relevance to anything since THEY are the ones who have been entrusted to decide the case. What I want or think about what happened is my opinion only and has absolutely NO bearing on anything except as a matter of discussion. If the jury’s decision puts any of them in danger, it’s because the current state of our society is being overrun by idiots.

          Liked by 2 people

  19. Something interesting from the trial of Ahmaud Arbery —

    Under questioning by his attorney, Travis McMichael, who shot and killed Arbery with a 12-gauge shotgun after chasing him in his Ford F-150 pickup, said his training from his Coast Guard service included de-escalation techniques — and concepts around the use of force.

    “In your experience, can pointing a gun at somebody deescalate a situation?” Sheffield asked.

    “Yes,” McMichael answered.

    “How so?”

    “If you pull a weapon on someone, from what I’ve learned in my training, usually that caused people to back off or to realize what’s happening” and comply with orders, McMichael said.

    Had Rittenhouse had this training, perhaps things would have turned out differently …

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Questions: Let’s plat devil’s advocate. If Kyle Rittenhouse had intended to shoot up a BLM protest and to get away with it what would he have done differently? Seems he wanted to provoke a reaction to use so he could shoot people. The only genuine reaction was immediately after the shooting where he was rattled by the physicality, finality, and the chaos.

    What is it with the gloves? Gloves are for when there is a messy job. Maybe medical treatment, something he was unqualified to perform, might qualify. But then he was holding a large firearm as his primary tool? Shooting people is also messy. The phrases ‘filthy n*****s’ and ‘dirty f*****g hippies’ come to mind. What was going through Kyle’s mind?

    If his intent was to act as a medic wouldn’t the medical side take precedent and pride-of-place; a large and expensive medical kit and a small/ cheap gun.

    I don’t give much credit for community support. A photo of Charlie Manson playing a guitar and singing folk songs with kids is making the rounds. Seems a bit pre-planned.

    By standard police protocols a person holding a gun with a finger near the trigger and pointing it in your direction is enough to justify use of lethal force. Were the people shot trying to defend a peaceful protest from a armed threat with whatever they had as hand?

    Ongoing observations on where we are going: What happens when BLM protests and similar start to carry guns. In the open. When they get a permit for the protest and have guns. If someone points a gun at the protest people guarding the protest shoot them and cite the legality of the protest, they are there legally and have a right to be there, and stand-your-ground laws as defense.

    What next? Will white supremacists in Klan outfits go to predominantly black churches hoping to get a reaction that makes them feel ‘threatened’ so they can shoot up the place? Will Black Panthers go to country music concerts hoping to do the same thing?

    Is prancing around places you were not invited with a gun and a chip in your shoulder hoping someone says Boo going to be the next big thing?

    I’ve noticed a trend: There seems to be an assumption that the person openly holding a gun defines the ‘existing condition’. Any objection is seen as an attack. As opposed to showing up to a peaceful protest as the attack and reaction is defense. If that is how it works Progressives need to open carry.

    Random thoughts.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Yes, I just got word of this a bit ago.

      While I could see him getting off on the more severe charges, from every video I watched, he reacted far, far too quickly and, obviously, with DEADLY results.

      Liked by 3 people

      • How ‘quickly’ should someone pull the trigger when reacting to (not instigating):

        1) a crazy person grabbing the barrel and who has already said he’s going to kill you,
        2) a person who has already struck you over the head with a skateboard and is winding up to do it again,
        3) a person who raises and points a revolver at your head?

        How were you able to judge the ‘quickness’ here of the trigger pulling after being pursued, after being physically attacked, and still confidently determine that it all happened “far, far too quickly?”

        At what speed would make it more… ummm… like justified self defense… 1/4 second, 1/2 second, or maybe lying dead in the street?


        • I have my reasons for saying what I did. You have your reasons for saying your piece. I’m NOT going to waste my time arguing with you or anyone else on the verdict.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Evidently the jury, which had access to a far more comprehensive view of the evidence than the commenters here, agreed with my assessment.

      I stand by my earlier prediction. There will be riots in blue-state cities (not in red states where the rioters know in advance that the authorities won’t tolerate such behavior), the leadership in those cities will dither and fiddle-faddle and fail to restore order, and another wave of exhausted and disgusted voters will swing to the Republicans, permanently.


  21. Don’t attempt to kill someone who is armed, if you do then this is the result. This result is the best possible for all Americans in this country, but every comment I see here is more or less in Defense of the Three Criminals who were trying to burn down and destroy this community. You leave out the Career offenses of the three men who died, one was convicted Pedophile who raped more than one Child… I don’t think any of you bothered to watch the trial and if you did you stopped at the biased coverage of the network in which you viewed it on. The point was never about him being in a place he didn’t belong. Those people DID deserve to burn down a town that was not theirs? No, I’m ashamed of the inept critical thinking on display here and the Media at large. Do better, be better.


    • “You leave out the Career offenses of the three men who died, one was convicted Pedophile who raped more than one Child.”

      First, pedophilia is a victimless “crime.” It’s nothing more than a thought crime. Pederasty, on the other hand, while much more serious, is not something that somebody deserves to die for.
      Second, it’s not relevant to the discussion at hand unless the person was in the act of actively raping a child.

      “Those people DID deserve to burn down a town that was not theirs?”

      Who’s saying that? Seriously?!

      “No, I’m ashamed of the inept critical thinking on display here”

      Of course you are.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Is it not inferred? To say Kyle didn’t have the right to protect a town where he worked and his father lived? Did he have a right to be there? Yes.
        Pedophilia is victimless? Good luck convincing anyone other than pedophiles of that.

        You lost once defended the convicted child rapist of trying to murder a 17 year old kid, does that fit your excuse a little more snug?

        The truth seeking atheist? Good luck.

        Yes… inept critical thinking.

        Gaige had a concealed firearm with a revoked license, he then attempted to execute Kyle who then and only then fired one shot that neutralized the threat and then continued towards police… without firing on another person. It wasn’t just the three men chasing him, but I guess video evidence can be tricky.

        Take another swing you’ll get a hit a some point.


        • Having a preference towards children doesn’t actually cause harm, pederasty does! If you want to lump both those together I can’t stop you, but it leaves little room for nuance, nor does it do anything to recognize which is actually harmful.

          “You lost once defended the convicted child rapist of trying to murder a 17 year old kid, does that fit your excuse a little more snug?”

          I’ve done nothing of the sort. Please point me to my specific comment where I suggest this. I’ll wait.


      • Pedophilia: 1 a paraphilia in which sexual gratification is derived from fantasies or sexual ACTS involving a child.

        You really do not want to pursue your opinion any further with me. Stay in your little Authoritarian bubble in Canada where you belong.

        Defending child rape? Tells me everything I need to know.


        • I tend to make a distinction between those who have thoughts and preferences towards children and those who act on those thoughts and preferences. You don’t have control over your thoughts, but you do have a degree of control over your actions.

          As for defending child rape, you’re a complete idiot if you actually believe that. Oh, wait….

          Liked by 1 person

        • Good luck in life. A complete idiot? From a comment a complete judgement is rendered, you must fascinate a few people. You’re not worth the time I have already given you. Please don’t reproduce, just kidding I read your blog. Bye.


  22. Following is a comment by an individual who goes by the handle of “RIC.” He was responding to an article written by someone who supported — and outlined his reasons why — the Not Guilty verdict.

    I’m not going to provide the link, but I am going to share a portion of the comment because I think it sums things up very well. Comments will then be closed.

    The moment he fired his rifle, he was not legally guilty of murder because he shot in self-defense.

    The moment he decided to go into a town hoisting an automatic rifle, let alone into a town where rioting as breaking out at night, he was morally guilty of needlessly and dangerously provoking others.

    He was mentally and biological a juvenile. His actions should be judged through that lens. Also, in the coming weeks and months, the amount of credence given to his opinions about politics, gun rights, etc., should be in alignment with his mental and biological age. The adults in KR’s life should encourage him to keep his head down, fade out of the public eye, and move forward in his life, but I doubt the media will allow it.

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.