Kyle Rittenhouse

[Cortopassi]

I normally don't look at the politics section anymore, but I did want to ask a couple things.

I need to say I purposely do not watch much news anymore, even though this was happening less than 50 miles from where I live. So I am asking not to get shit upon here but looking for a better understanding of this case.

Here's what I understand , and I'd like you guys to comment:

1) He was 17, with a 17 year old boy's brain, and decided to go protect people in Kenosha. Was there a specific person/business he went to protect? He got the gun from a friend/dad up there? Was there ever any discussion on how or why his mother even let him go? 54 year old brain in me would basically tell me to stay as far away from riots as possible.

2) Once there, he was on the street with a big gun. Was he actually protecting a specific business, or just roaming the streets, doing what exactly?

3) My opinion, what I see is a stupid ass kid, with a lot of testosterone, going to do something stupidly hazardous to himself and others. I suppose this is why we need 18-20 year olds to fight wars because older people are usually more thoughtful vs. gung ho.

Hypothetical question, in discussing this a bit with more left leaning people at work, one of whom is black, we discussed what would have happened if he was instead a 17 year old black kid with a big ass gun. The immediate reaction from everyone was either a) he would have never made it off the street to get to trial because he would have been killed or b) he would have been found guilty if he made it to trial. Do you agree or not?

[murphy_p_t]

Like you, I did not follow the story closely.

If you watch the interview of him with Tucker carlson, I think you will be surprised and impressed, as I was, by Rittenhouse and his very mature demeanor. Some of the questions you raise are answered in that interview.

[Kbg]

I like juries. They have to sit through a trial and hear the evidence as presented by two adversaries. They have to get to the point where 12 people have to agree on everything and live with their decision the rest of their lives.. If they can't agree, there is no decision.

I like juries. Let's leave it up to them and ignore the news.

[I Shrugged]

I normally don't look at the politics section anymore, but I did want to ask a couple things.

I need to say I purposely do not watch much news anymore, even though this was happening less than 50 miles from where I live. So I am asking not to get shit upon here but looking for a better understanding of this case.

Here's what I understand , and I'd like you guys to comment:

1) He was 17, with a 17 year old boy's brain, and decided to go protect people in Kenosha. Was there a specific person/business he went to protect? He got the gun from a friend/dad up there? Was there ever any discussion on how or why his mother even let him go? 54 year old brain in me would basically tell me to stay as far away from riots as possible.

2) Once there, he was on the street with a big gun. Was he actually protecting a specific business, or just roaming the streets, doing what exactly?

3) My opinion, what I see is a stupid ass kid, with a lot of testosterone, going to do something stupidly hazardous to himself and others. I suppose this is why we need 18-20 year olds to fight wars because older people are usually more thoughtful vs. gung ho.

Hypothetical question, in discussing this a bit with more left leaning people at work, one of whom is black, we discussed what would have happened if he was instead a 17 year old black kid with a big ass gun. The immediate reaction from everyone was either a) he would have never made it off the street to get to trial because he would have been killed or b) he would have been found guilty if he made it to trial. Do you agree or not?

This short Wikipedia article answers some of your questions. I am pretty wary of that site, but this seems to be factual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

[dualstow]

For the Arbery case,
↳ go here viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12405