Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Metaphor]

There was no good or legitimate reason for a 17 year old to take a loaded semiautomatic weapon to a demonstration

So what? You keep saying it. Do you intend to charge Rittenhouse with not having a good or legitimate reason to be at a protest?

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

"he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so." Are you saying there are legitimate, good, or rational reasons to do so?

 

[J842P]

Rittenhouse may be found guilty of carrying the rifle underage. That is a misdemeanor, with, I think, a maximum of something like 90 days in jail.

You are being very emotionally reactionary about this and I disagree because your argument is shallow. Rittenhouse could be found guilty of such thing easily you have mentioned in this post, but your other posts show shallow dismissal of a reasoned middle ground. Whether or not KR is guilty of other things is not a thing you want to even think about it and he could easily be, provided those things have a factual and documented basis, able to be proved and demonstrated to an impartially minded jury or judge. Of course, he might not even be charged with the right crimes, much like Zimmerman wasn't comprehensively charged of the crimes that could _all_ be proved. So, for example, KR could easily also be guilty of reckless endangerment due to bringing and putting an illegally obtained gun on display and his motivations to hurt people, thus showing a reckless disregard for life. He could also be guilty of serious armed assault, provided certain things can be established in regard to the armed person he shot. Charges of murder are a bit extreme, sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you are getting emotional.

This is just your own emotional response that because I disagree with your conclusions I somehow am not considering "a reasoned middle ground", and in the context of this thread, it should be clear I am talking about the charges as they exist. Your hypotheticals are just that - hypotheticals.

But even in your hypothetical, merely possessing a weapon, or as you put it, "putting it on display" is not illegal, unless it is illegally *brandished*. And no, for the specific instances we are talking about, e.g. the two people killed and the two people shot at, I am fairly certain after watching the videos and listening to the testimony that there are no grounds for any charges like armed assault. Everyone of those instances is a clear-cut case of self-defense. About as clear cut as it gets, especially considering the amount of footage available.

 

[ZiprHead]

Malice aforethought is not involved in any of the charges against KR, it's a strawman. So yes, he is.

So if it is not, what do his intentions in going to the protest have to do with anything?

Because it was a completely idiotic and stupid move. His mom and the people that supplied him with the weapon did him no good.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

"he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so." Are you saying there are legitimate, good, or rational reasons to do so?

I am saying it is completely irrelevant to the shooting charges whether there is or isn't. I am also saying that the actual reason is more likely to be that Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he was not vulnerable, rather than Rittenhouse wanted to murder random people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

Grosskruetz testified that he raised his hands in surrender and Rittenhouse re-racked his weapon. And shot him.

Yes, I saw the whole testimony. "re-racking" his weapon doesn't make it an unjustified shooting. He didn't "surrender", he raised his hands and immediately lowered them to point his handgun at Kyle's head. Now, he may have been *intending* to surrender. But at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that this guy was charging at him *with a gun in his hand extended towards him*. Note, that fact was admitted by Grosskruetz on cross examination, pretty much after he lied about that fact earlier!

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.

You're not telling the whole story. I too saw the testimony. KR fired his weapon at Grosskreutz while he had his hands up. There was no bullet in the chamber so no bullet to fire. KR then re-racked his weapon and that's when G lowered his arms fearing for his own life. He just didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. If he had he might still have his arm.

You're description was, to say the least, a little self-serving. I won't say what I really think of it.

 

[Metaphor]

Malice aforethought is not involved in any of the charges against KR, it's a strawman. So yes, he is.

So if it is not, what do his intentions in going to the protest have to do with anything?

Because it was a completely idiotic and stupid move. His mom and the people that supplied him with the weapon did him no good.

Well, I would not have supplied a 17 year old with a weapon or driven him to a protest with it. But it is Rittenhouse on trial, not those people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

"he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so." Are you saying there are legitimate, good, or rational reasons to do so?

I am saying it is completely irrelevant to the shooting charges whether there is or isn't. I am also saying that the actual reason is more likely to be that Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he was not vulnerable, rather than Rittenhouse wanted to murder random people.

It's an internet forum. People talk about tangents to the original arguments all the time. I just had to move a bunch of posts because they were a derail. You participated in that so don't go off on others for following tangents.

What the hell does "not vulnerable" mean? You mean he wanted to show how big of a man he is?

If he wanted to really be not vulnerable, he could have just stayed home.

 

[ZiprHead]

Malice aforethought is not involved in any of the charges against KR, it's a strawman. So yes, he is.

So if it is not, what do his intentions in going to the protest have to do with anything?

Because it was a completely idiotic and stupid move. His mom and the people that supplied him with the weapon did him no good.

Well, I would not have supplied a 17 year old with a weapon or driven him to a protest with it. But it is Rittenhouse on trial, not those people.

That means you're smarter than the people around KR.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

"he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so." Are you saying there are legitimate, good, or rational reasons to do so?

I am saying it is completely irrelevant to the shooting charges whether there is or isn't. I am also saying that the actual reason is more likely to be that Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he was not vulnerable, rather than Rittenhouse wanted to murder random people.

It's an internet forum. People talk about tangents to the original arguments all the time. I just had to move a bunch of posts because they were a derail. You participated in that so don't go off on others for following tangents.

What the hell does "not vulnerable" mean? You mean he wanted to show how big of a man he is?

If he wanted to really be not vulnerable, he could have just stayed home.

I've already explained it more than once. People will think twice about assaulting an armed person.

And, unless there is a crime of 'going to a protest with no good reason' -- then I don't see what it has to do with anything.

 

[J842P]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

I've enumerated this plenty of times, and I notice that pretty much no one, except at least Toni, has even tried to talk about the specifics.

1) Rosenbaum: Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started. Rosenbaum *articulated* that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. Again, after chasing and cornering Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum lunges at Rittenhouse and attempts to -- or actually manages to -- grab Rosenbaum's weapon. It is only at this point that Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum. Note, this is clear from several video sources, including various persons, a drone, and a police helicopter. And eyewitness testimony of the guy that was in the same parking lot trying to record it.

2) The second guy, "jump-kick guy" (he is unidentified, he is wearing blue I believe) kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on the ground having fallen after being chased by a mob (or otherwise "angry, agitated group of people") screaming to get him and "cranium him". Again, this is all on video from several angles. Rittenhouse shoots this guy, and apparently doesn't hit him. Then Huber knocks Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard and manages to actually grab the gun which is when Rittenhouse shoots him. Even Grosskruetz admits under oath that he perceived Rittenhouse to be in danger at this point, particularly of head trauma -- his words unelicited by the defense attorney cross-examining him! Now, Grosskreutz first claimed that he was only sort of "following" the mob, not chasing Rittenhouse, without a gun. After cross examination, he admits that he was actually "running towards" Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand. Now, after Huber is shot, Grosskruetz basically stops in his tracks and sort of jumps up with his arms near his head. Grosskruetz claims that Rittenhouse shot him at this point, but in my opinion, the video's don't even show Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Grosskruetz *until* Grosskruetz points the handgun that he had in his hand at Rittenhouse's head, at which point he is shot.

What part of this do you think disqualifies Rittenhouse from making a valid self-defense claim? Every single one of the people shot by Rittenhouse was either actively attacking him, or chasing him and pointing a gun at his head.

 

[Arctish]

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

No one is saying Rittenhouse went there specifically to murder random people, so can we put that strawman back in the cornfield now?

 

[J842P]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

Grosskruetz testified that he raised his hands in surrender and Rittenhouse re-racked his weapon. And shot him.

Yes, I saw the whole testimony. "re-racking" his weapon doesn't make it an unjustified shooting. He didn't "surrender", he raised his hands and immediately lowered them to point his handgun at Kyle's head. Now, he may have been *intending* to surrender. But at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that this guy was charging at him *with a gun in his hand extended towards him*. Note, that fact was admitted by Grosskruetz on cross examination, pretty much after he lied about that fact earlier!

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.

You're not telling the whole story. I too saw the testimony. KR fired his weapon at Grosskreutz while he had his hands up. There was no bullet in the chamber so no bullet to fire. KR then re-racked his weapon and that's when G lowered his arms fearing for his own life. He just didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. If he had he might still have his arm.

You're description was, to say the least, a little self-serving. I won't say what I really think of it.

No, I'm responding to *exactly those claims* as brought up by Toni, I'm not leaving out anything. But fine, this is merely what Grosskreutz claims, after being caught in a major lie about having a firearm by the way. There is no evidence that Rittenhouse shot him in the videos when he had his hands up, and indeed, it doesn't seem like Rittenhouse's gun was pointed anywhere but off to the side while he was barely able to sit up straight after having shot Huber. But *regardless* at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that Grosskruetz is *running at him with a gun in his hand pointed towards him*.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

"he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so." Are you saying there are legitimate, good, or rational reasons to do so?

I am saying it is completely irrelevant to the shooting charges whether there is or isn't. I am also saying that the actual reason is more likely to be that Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he was not vulnerable, rather than Rittenhouse wanted to murder random people.

It's an internet forum. People talk about tangents to the original arguments all the time. I just had to move a bunch of posts because they were a derail. You participated in that so don't go off on others for following tangents.

What the hell does "not vulnerable" mean? You mean he wanted to show how big of a man he is?

If he wanted to really be not vulnerable, he could have just stayed home.

I've already explained it more than once. People will think twice about assaulting an armed person.

And, unless there is a crime of 'going to a protest with no good reason' -- then I don't see what it has to do with anything.

If you don't understand it, then maybe you should stop commenting on it because your comments are making you look foolish.

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

 

[Enigma]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

It was after the 8:00 PM emergency curfew was in effect. Literally everybody there was committing a crime.

 

[Metaphor]

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

No one is saying Rittenhouse went there specifically to murder random people, so can we put that strawman back in the cornfield now?

Can people stop asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' Rittenhouse had for being there, then?

 

[Metaphor]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

Is he being charged with those crimes? If not, it is the continuation of the same red herring: "What good reason did Rittenhouse have to be there"?

 

[Arctish]

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

No one is saying Rittenhouse went there specifically to murder random people, so can we put that strawman back in the cornfield now?

Can people stop asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' Rittenhouse had for being there, then?

No.

Because asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason Rittenhouse had for being there with an AR-15 is not the same as saying he went there specifically to murder random people.

 

[Metaphor]

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

No one is saying Rittenhouse went there specifically to murder random people, so can we put that strawman back in the cornfield now?

Can people stop asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' Rittenhouse had for being there, then?

No.

Because asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason Rittenhouse had for being there with an AR-15 is not the same as saying he went there specifically to murder random people.

Why do people keep asking? What reason do they think Rittenhouse went there? Does it make any difference to what he has been charged with?

 

[Arctish]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

I've enumerated this plenty of times, and I notice that pretty much no one, except at least Toni, has even tried to talk about the specifics.

1) Rosenbaum: Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started. Rosenbaum *articulated* that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. Again, after chasing and cornering Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum lunges at Rittenhouse and attempts to -- or actually manages to -- grab Rosenbaum's weapon. It is only at this point that Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum. Note, this is clear from several video sources, including various persons, a drone, and a police helicopter. And eyewitness testimony of the guy that was in the same parking lot trying to record it.

2) The second guy, "jump-kick guy" (he is unidentified, he is wearing blue I believe) kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on the ground having fallen after being chased by a mob (or otherwise "angry, agitated group of people") screaming to get him and "cranium him". Again, this is all on video from several angles. Rittenhouse shoots this guy, and apparently doesn't hit him. Then Huber knocks Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard and manages to actually grab the gun which is when Rittenhouse shoots him. Even Grosskruetz admits under oath that he perceived Rittenhouse to be in danger at this point, particularly of head trauma -- his words unelicited by the defense attorney cross-examining him! Now, Grosskreutz first claimed that he was only sort of "following" the mob, not chasing Rittenhouse, without a gun. After cross examination, he admits that he was actually "running towards" Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand. Now, after Huber is shot, Grosskruetz basically stops in his tracks and sort of jumps up with his arms near his head. Grosskruetz claims that Rittenhouse shot him at this point, but in my opinion, the video's don't even show Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Grosskruetz *until* Grosskruetz points the handgun that he had in his hand at Rittenhouse's head, at which point he is shot.

What part of this do you think disqualifies Rittenhouse from making a valid self-defense claim? Every single one of the people shot by Rittenhouse was either actively attacking him, or chasing him and pointing a gun at his head.

There are some unsupported allegations in your post that really skew your argument.

You say "Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started" but do you have evidence Rosenbum was friends with anyone else there, that Rosenbaum started fires, or that Rittenhouse put those fires out?

The only fires I know about that Rosenbaum had something to do with was a dumpster fire. I don't believe evidence of who started it has been presented. There is evidence Rittenhouse ran towards the dumpster fire but not that he put one out, or even attempted to put it out.

And there is no evidence Rittenhouse was being chased by a 'mob'.

People were following him because he was an active shooter who had just fatally wounded someone. Mostly they were keeping their distance, though. It was only couple of very brave men who confronted Rittenhouse directly and tried to disarm him.

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

No one is saying Rittenhouse went there specifically to murder random people, so can we put that strawman back in the cornfield now?

Can people stop asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' Rittenhouse had for being there, then?

No.

Because asking what 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason Rittenhouse had for being there with an AR-15 is not the same as saying he went there specifically to murder random people.

Why do people keep asking? What reason do they think Rittenhouse went there? Does it make any difference to what he has been charged with?

The answer relates to culpability.

If Rittenhouse was there because the car he was driving broke down and he was openly carrying an assault rifle because he was afraid it would be stolen if he left it behind, that lack of intent to be walking on the street or to appear menacing bolsters his claims of innocence.

If he was there with that weapon in order to scare off people who might damage property, his having the intent to be there and appear dangerous undermines his claims of innocence and victimhood.