Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Derec]

Yes, he said the coroner said that. So, where did he lie?

Rosenbaum was facing Rittenhouse when he was shot.

 

[Shadowy Man]

After a little googling, it appears that the answer is that the cop ran out of bullets.

How is that racially biased? Stupid to say to a bailiff, but it is not racially biased.

It isn't prima facie *racially* biased. Both the defense and the prosecution agreed to dump him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kyle Rittenhouse's trial opens with his lawyer saying the N-word twice in court

Next time read the article. He was quoting!

 

[blastula]

Yes, he said the coroner said that. So, where did he lie?

Rosenbaum was facing Rittenhouse when he was shot.

At first, yes. So? One bullet still entered from his back.

Any more alleged lies in this "fictional" opening statement? Or was that it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After a little googling, it appears that the answer is that the cop ran out of bullets.

How is that racially biased? Stupid to say to a bailiff, but it is not racially biased.

Stupid to say. We have a consensus. Next!

 

[Toni]

This is like a reception these days.... what is a football move?

Heh?

What is self-defense when someone crosses state lines while armed with a dangerous weapon (he isn't legally old enough to possess),

Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with a weapon to go to the Kenosha riots. He and his sister were already in Kenosha when the riots started. He is also seen cleaning up graffiti made by Antifa vandals the night before.

Also, the gun was purchased by his friend's father (paid by Kyle's COVID unemployment) with the intention of transferring ownership to Kyle when he turns 18. I do not know where the narrative that he crossed the state lines armed with a rifle with the purpose of going to the riots came from, but it is as fictional as that prosecutor's opening statement.

Note also that Antioch is very close to Kenosha (20 miles or so) while Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa rioter, was from Milwaukee (40 miles away), but nobody objects to him travelling from out of area.

to walk amongst a protest (not even participate in)?

He was also offering medical assistance, and had a med kit with him.

If the law provides cover for such wanton stupidity, the law needs to go.

It was not the smartest decision for Kyle to go to downtown Kenosha given that he was attacked by Antifa rioters.
But why do you not object to the much bigger stupidity of the Anifa rioters who vandalized and torched the city of Kenosha over a justified police shooting? Or the colossal stupidity of Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz (reads like a law firm, lmao!) to attack an armed person? At least Grosskreutz had a gun on him (and an idea to false surrender in order to get a drop on Kyle) but bringing a skateboard or a bag-o-stuff to a gunfight is Darwin award territory.

FWIW, I think that Rittenhouse should be prosecuted as a juvenile because he is still a kid. I think that what he did was horrific and unnecessary and deserves some significant consequences, but he's a kid. I think that the adults in his life who were supposed to be responsible for this kid have done him a grave disservice as have all the other adults who continue to lionize or even justify his actions. There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

You may remember that I am a parent and I am speaking as a parent who has raised multiple children. It sickens me to think that this kid has been made cause celebre for some very vicious people. People lost their lives because of the utter and complete lack of responsibility and common sense of the adults in this kids life.

I do not know the origins of the narrative that he crossed state lines with his mother's blessing and/or company but that was widely reported. The friends' father behaved in an extremely irresponsible manner. The kid should not have been working sufficient hours to collect unemployment--he deserved to be in school and/or job training. He wasn't even legally an adult which, btw, is not actually an adult in terms of human development/brain development. That was just what they decided to do because they were sending 18 year olds to war.

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

 

[Trausti]

Damn. It's like the prosecution really doesn't want to win.

 

[Toni]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Vote for Metaphor, Candidate for the Shit Happens party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

The reality is, RIttenhouse had no training and absolutely no capability to handle himself as a professional as a 'peacekeeper'. This is in large part why people died. The main defense for him was he was simply defending himself. Yes, he defended himself with lethal force because he lacked the skill to defend himself any other way, including de-escalation and avoidance of threats. As we saw, police officers and other armed vigilantes weren't shooting people that night too.

'Self defense' has to have some line drawn when needless personal incompetence is such a major driving force.

 

[Toni]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

The reality is, RIttenhouse had no training and absolutely no capability to handle himself as a professional as a 'peacekeeper'.

So what?

This is in large part why people died. The main defense for him was he was simply defending himself. Yes, he defended himself with lethal force because he lacked the skill to defend himself any other way,

So what?

including de-escalation and avoidance of threats. As we saw, police officers and other armed vigilantes weren't shooting people that night too.

'Self defense' has to have some line drawn when needless personal incompetence is such a major driving force.

Either he shot people in self defense or he didn't. How he came to be in the situation is not relevant to his guilt or innocence, even if his choices caused him to be in a riskier situation than staying at home and watching reruns of Dallas or whatever it is the kids are watching.

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

 

[Toni]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

No, any remotely competent prosecutor would make that same claim that it demonstrated intent.

I'm going to lay out a completely imaginary scenario that I sincerely hope won't make you feel upset or threatened but rather that you might see the point I'm trying to make--and apologies to mods if you feel the need to edit it:

Suppose you and I had an argument in real life. I show up at your place with a loaded firearm. The argument escalates in person and gets physical. I shoot you. I may claim self defense--you're bigger than I am and male and younger and stronger and I was afraid for my life. The first thing any law enforcement officer would ask is why I drove to your place WITH A LOADED FIREARM. Even assuming I owned one and it was dutifully licensed and legal. this is pretend: I live about 50 miles away from you, not halfway across the world. Also I have a loaded firearm in my possession which would never happen. Not to mention I would never drive 50 miles to continue an argument in person.)

Obviously, this would be impossible in Australia even if you and I were up for such a fight and even if I ever ever ever wished to have any sort of firearm. So, maybe flip the scenario: You're in the US....giving a lecture or on vacation or whatever and I drive to your hotel to continue an online argument. Again: not something I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do. The thought is horrific to me, even without any firearms being involved.

Deliberately driving to and attending any confrontation aside from a formal skeet shoot competition with a firearm, loaded or not, certainly indicates that the person with the gun intended things to escalate, even beyond simply driving to confront someone in person. Loaded? That definitely looks like premeditation, like the person carrying a loaded firearm intended to use it--on...... someone. A specific person as the intended target is not necessary.

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

No, any remotely competent prosecutor would make that same claim that it demonstrated intent.

I'm going to lay out a completely imaginary scenario that I sincerely hope won't make you feel upset or threatened but rather that you might see the point I'm trying to make--and apologies to mods if you feel the need to edit it:

Suppose you and I had an argument in real life. I show up at your place with a loaded firearm. The argument escalates in person and gets physical. I shoot you. I may claim self defense--you're bigger than I am and male and younger and stronger and I was afraid for my life. The first thing any law enforcement officer would ask is why I drove to your place WITH A LOADED FIREARM. Even assuming I owned one and it was dutifully licensed and legal. this is pretend: I live about 50 miles away from you, not halfway across the world. Also I have a loaded firearm in my possession which would never happen. Not to mention I would never drive 50 miles to continue an argument in person.)

Obviously, this would be impossible in Australia even if you and I were up for such a fight and even if I ever ever ever wished to have any sort of firearm. So, maybe flip the scenario: You're in the US....giving a lecture or on vacation or whatever and I drive to your hotel to continue an online argument. Again: not something I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do. The thought is horrific to me, even without any firearms being involved.

Deliberately driving to and attending any confrontation aside from a formal skeet shoot competition with a firearm, loaded or not, certainly indicates that the person with the gun intended things to escalate, even beyond simply driving to confront someone in person. Loaded? That definitely looks like premeditation, like the person carrying a loaded firearm intended to use it--on...... someone. A specific person as the intended target is not necessary.

Who did he have an argument with that he intended to shoot?

Dick Cheney shot somebody while he was hunting. Was that premeditated?

 

[Toni]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

No, any remotely competent prosecutor would make that same claim that it demonstrated intent.

I'm going to lay out a completely imaginary scenario that I sincerely hope won't make you feel upset or threatened but rather that you might see the point I'm trying to make--and apologies to mods if you feel the need to edit it:

Suppose you and I had an argument in real life. I show up at your place with a loaded firearm. The argument escalates in person and gets physical. I shoot you. I may claim self defense--you're bigger than I am and male and younger and stronger and I was afraid for my life. The first thing any law enforcement officer would ask is why I drove to your place WITH A LOADED FIREARM. Even assuming I owned one and it was dutifully licensed and legal. this is pretend: I live about 50 miles away from you, not halfway across the world. Also I have a loaded firearm in my possession which would never happen. Not to mention I would never drive 50 miles to continue an argument in person.)

Obviously, this would be impossible in Australia even if you and I were up for such a fight and even if I ever ever ever wished to have any sort of firearm. So, maybe flip the scenario: You're in the US....giving a lecture or on vacation or whatever and I drive to your hotel to continue an online argument. Again: not something I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do. The thought is horrific to me, even without any firearms being involved.

Deliberately driving to and attending any confrontation aside from a formal skeet shoot competition with a firearm, loaded or not, certainly indicates that the person with the gun intended things to escalate, even beyond simply driving to confront someone in person. Loaded? That definitely looks like premeditation, like the person carrying a loaded firearm intended to use it--on...... someone. A specific person as the intended target is not necessary.

Who did he have an argument with that he intended to shoot?

Dick Cheney shot somebody while he was hunting. Was that premeditated?

Rittenhouse went to a demonstration with a loaded firearm. The ONLY reason to take a loaded firearm ANYWHERE is if you intend to shoot someone or something. In fact, it is generally illegal to carry a loaded firearm. In Wisconsin, a long gun may be transported only if it is unloaded.

Whatever you intended, your Cheney example actually illustrates my point: He was carrying a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail on private property along with friends/acquaintances. He had a loaded firearm precisely because he intended to shoot and kill something.

Cheney did shoot someone. He had a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail in a hunting party on private property. Hopefully, he and whatever secret service agents with him were intelligent enough to ensure that his weapon was not loaded until they got to the field. To do otherwise is gross incompetence. I write this as someone who grew up in a long line of quail hunters. Do I think that Cheney demonstrated his incompetence with a firearm? I certainly do. Do I think that Cheney could have and probably should have been charged in this incident? Possibly. Both men claimed it was an accident but I know enough about quail hunting that I am certain that it was not just an accident but gross incompetence. Do I think that Cheney should have been charged many times over for many crimes? Definitely.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

The reality is, RIttenhouse had no training and absolutely no capability to handle himself as a professional as a 'peacekeeper'.

So what?

This is in large part why people died. The main defense for him was he was simply defending himself. Yes, he defended himself with lethal force because he lacked the skill to defend himself any other way,

So what?

including de-escalation and avoidance of threats. As we saw, police officers and other armed vigilantes weren't shooting people that night too.

'Self defense' has to have some line drawn when needless personal incompetence is such a major driving force.

Either he shot people in self defense or he didn't. How he came to be in the situation is not relevant to his guilt or innocence, even if his choices caused him to be in a riskier situation than staying at home and watching reruns of Dallas or whatever it is the kids are watching.

At some point, negligence has to become a factor. There is a reason guns like that aren't even legal to for minors to purchase to begin with. This is the trouble with bogus SYG defenses, because it effectively makes the killer immune to any semblance of responsibility for their gross negligence.

 

[Toni]

Update: Apparently there is video showing Rittenhouse in pursuit, not being chased.