Rittonhouse Trial: Discussion

Drop your thoughts below.

Sorry if a topic has been made on this topic. Just delete post.



I was leaning towards guilty to be honest. But the guy he shots testimony was damning for the prosecution, plus Rittonhouse seems to be a very good witness. And the judge does not seem to like the prosecutor…

And by leaning towards guilty, I based that on the little info I got from the news, I was on the fence really… If he is exonerated, does he have any case against the media?


First, spell his name right. second, we already have a discussion going. :slightly_smiling_face:



maybe… Baron Friedrich von Rittonhouse?


@Randall318 You can also delete it as the thread parent. There is already a discussion in progress on the Rittenhouse case.

Stay safe

1 Like

How do I proceed with that @Frank73?

I’ll try to fanigle with it!

1 Like

Have you seen the video @Fred_G?

I think assault with a deadly weapon and (or) illegal possession of firearm. Because I’m all for carrying but that “protest” if while I mean using mozze toff cocktails and damaging property is now peaceful… He should not be walking around like billy the kid carrying his AR-15 IN A DEMOCRATIC OR LEFTEST DEMONSTRATION.


like Mardi-Gras down here… NO WEAPON IN PARTY OR ‘PEACEFUL’ PROTEST <----- totally not peacel

To me, its his intent. And then his prior post (judge ruled 1st Amendment Applied… I think he does hate prosecutor).

It makes a person think, Where is the line drawn?


I was not aware this was an English class.

But, now since the public service announcement came across my screen I shall use proper spelling and grammar.

@bruce26, I shall produce evidence you like to integrate arguments. The first thing you ever said to me was,
“Don’t Be A Smart@ss.”

And it was at that moment I liked you.

Would you like a screen shot of that message back from 2019? :joy:

You know I’m just messing with you, but that was a real event lol.

1 Like

I stand corrected. I don’t think that you can delete the entire thread. A moderator has to do that for you.


1 Like

What makes me uneasy about the whole Rittenhouse thing is this: If I think I may need my AR-15 to go somewhere, I am probably not going to go. Unless it is hunting. :grin:

Remember the Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots? They were on top of their stores, and VERY effectively protected their business.


The road to prison, as well as other well-known destinations, can be paved with good intentions.

I believe that Rittenhouse had good intentions when he decided to join a group of friends in their effort to protect private property in the face of wildly violent and out-of-control “protests” happening in Kenosha, a town to which he had a family connection. That being said, showing up as as part of a wandering group of uninvited armed security in a town in which he doesn’t reside to protect property he doesn’t own from other wandering bands of violent and unpredictable “protestor” can be seen as a poor decision, good intentions not withstanding.

Be that as it may, I do believe that Rittenhouse was reasonably in fear for his life when he deployed his weapon. According to what information I have seen he was under physical assault from three individuals; one use a blunt object to strike at his head, one who tried to take his weapon away from him, and one pointing a handgun at him. Self-defense seems an obvious conclusion.

Let’s review the common conditions for legal use of a firearm in self-defense (I am not a lawyer):
1- being legally in possession of the firearm
2- being legally in a location (not trespassing) where it is legal to be armed
3- not being the instigator of physical violence
4- using your weapon only as a reaction to deadly force directed at you

Without getting into all the many specific jurisdictional variables which may apply in this situation, I believe what I have listed is common, if not universal. Also, there is evidence to suggest that Rittenhouse was attempting to retreat prior to the actual shooting. While there may have been some poor judgement involved which led to Rittenhouse ending up in a life-or-death situation, at the moment of the attack I believe he was justified in his use of force to defend his life.

Lastly, consider just one aspect of this event which may influence the prosecution as well as the jury: Rittenhouse’s use of the much-maligned, greatly misunderstood AR-15, which we all know is the left-leaning media’s favorite symbol of “evil guns” in the hands of civilians, especially the law-abiding. Is it possible that the investigator’s, the prosecutor’s, and the public’s (read “jury’s”) perceptions of the event may have been different if some other, less universally reviled weapon had been used? Maybe; maybe not. But it bears thinking about.


If video games result in homicides then that means forks make fat people. Cars kill drunk people and guns have a conscience.



I think poor parenting results in more issues than video games.


Actually, let’s look at the four conditions that a Prosecutor will focus on in the event a firearm is used in a self defense situation.

*Were you reasonably in immediate fear of death or great/grave bodily harm for yourself or another person?

*Were you an innocent party?

*Was a lesser, sufficient method of force available to stop the threat?

*Did you have no reasonable means of retreat or escape? (Castle Doctrine notwithstanding)

I’m no attorney either. However, this is directly from what we teach our students regarding what the four conditions are that must be met for the entire critical incident where/when deadly force is applied in self defense.

Stay safe out there.


All very reasonable and important to keep in mind. I would say that the “lesser force” and “means of retreat or escape” can be more subjective and ambiguous, depending on the specifics of the event and the jurisdiction, but still good points to be aware of/make use of if the situation allows.

Please allow me to elaborate a little bit here. Let’s say for instance that if someone had tried to punch Kyle Rittenhouse in the face and he used lethal force and killed his assailant, he would more than likely have not been able to claim self defense.

But, because he was met with a: Handgun, a Skateboard and an attempt to take his rifle from him, his claim to self defense is valid (as we are seeing being argued in his defense during this trial).

Kyle also demonstrated that he attempted to escape several times. But, because he was struck and fell, tried to crawl backward and the attack continued ( a handgun was pointed at him and an attempt to pull his rifle away as well has a skateboard being swung at his head), he defended himself. Also, in the case of Rosenbaum, he ran as far as he could until cornered and caught by his assailant. And when Rosenbaum attempted to take his rifle from him, Kyle fired his rifle in self defense.

These items above demonstrate to me that this case should have never made it to trial.

I think the specifics of this case are crystal clear. I also think that the jurisdiction is clear also. And it’s painfully clear that the current Prosecutor in that jurisdiction is biased against the right to self defense.

Stay safe.


Just so that I am clear:

They’re adding 500 National guard folk in case there are riots for the freeing of an innocent man, but there was no one interesting in protecting these places during other riots, the capital on “insurrection” day, and Chicago…anytime?


I’m sure the Guards Men and Women will be protecting the court house, police station, prosecutor’s and the mayors house, and maybe the Judges residence (who so far deserves it).

Just imagine if every able bodied and armed Men and Women citizens had come together to save their city, instead a 17 year old shamed them. :us: