Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Toni]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Baldwin wasn't incompetent. He relied upon the competence and expertise of the professionals on set who were in charge of ensuring that no loaded weapons were on set. This is something that he SHOULD have been able to rely upon. There is NO reason for a loaded weapon to be on set. There was gross negligence, at the very least, but it was not Baldwin's.

I don't own guns, I have never used a gun, I don't even play one on TV. But I do know gun enthusiasts have told me 'don't ever aim a gun at someone unless you don't mind they are shot'.

My point here is taking and using a loaded gun does not mean you were premeditated to murder. You are begging the question.

Note: From the little that I have been unable to avoid hearing about Baldwin, he sounds like a pretty terrible human being and not someone I would particularly like or enjoy meeting. I doubt we have a lot in common. That does not make him more or less culpable in the death of the person killed or the wounding of the other person.

YES. Carrying a loaded firearm means you intend to shoot it at someone or something. Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't hunting game animals. He carried it into a crowd of people.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

He could not legally own or carry that rifle, loaded or unloaded. He lacked the maturity and the experience to own or to carry a loaded rifle, period, much less in a crowd of people. Moreover, the police DO NOT WANT civilians of any age to carry loaded firearms into crowded demonstrations. Because people end up dead.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm.

Oy gevalt. I am certain that the law does not define what a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm is, and if it does then this whole conversation is pointless.

You are obsessed with the idea that Rittenhouse had to have a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm. I already gave you the most probable actual reason (whether you think it is good or legitimate is up to you): Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he could defend himself if somebody tried to assault him. And it was loaded because if it were not and this was made known to the would be assaulters, then the illusion is broken and the outward and visible sign was useless.

That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

I gave you the probable reason he did it. I am not interested in your opinion of whether that reason was 'legitimate', nor have you explained why having a 'legitimate' reason has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

It appears nothing can disabuse you of your prejudices.

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Second, openly carrying the firearm is the demonstration he meant business. It is the outward and visible sign that nobody should attack him. And should somebody attack him, an unloaded firearm would give him away as defenseless.

So, he was planning to fire his weapon…if someone frightened him.

Rittenhouse was too young to be in the position he was in. He did not know how to handle himself without the crutch of an illegal weapon. He was so young and so brainwashed that he believed he had to carry a weapon that he was not legally able to carry. Because this scared kid went into a crowd thinking he had to defend…something…two lives were lost, another man was injured and at least 4 lives were destroyed.

You sit there in a country where you will never, ever, ever have to deal with the toxicity fulmated by the NRA and dare to say he had a right to do something that was illegal for him to do because he was too damn young to handle himself, much less a loaded semiautomatic weapon.

What arrogance. What ignorance.

 

[Derec]

I agree that Rittenhouse should not be tried as an adult because he was 17 at the time.

I don't think Rittenhouse should have been charged at all, given that he defended himself from attacks by Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz.
But I think teenagers should be able to be tried as adults for serious crimes. Otherwise we have the situations like in LA where gangs employ underage teenagers as assassins because Garcon refuses to charge them as adults.

That does not make his killing of two men and wounding of a third man 'negligent.' In fact, it was criminal.

That is something the prosecution will have to prove. But even a 17 year old has a right to self-defense when attacked by violent felons.

The fact that he possessed and carried any firearm at the time was a crime.

Maybe. And maybe this will be the only charge that sticks, like with Bernhard Goetz, who shot and wounded five subway robbers with an illegal gun.

The fact that he discharged his weapon at human beings who were fleeing is a crime.

The "human beings" Rittenhouse discharged his weapons at were not fleeing. They were attacking him.
Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and then lunged for the barrel shroud.
Huber hit him with a skateboard and tried to take his weapon.
Grosskreutz attacked him with a handgun.

None of these people were fleeing when shot.

But he does not bear an adult responsibility for his crime. He still should face charges and if convicted, should do real time. So should those who enabled him by providing him the firearm and the means to go to a demonstration with a loaded weapon.

What about the rioters who were there that night. Why are Kenosha prosecutors not aggressively going after people who burned down and vandalized businesses, including a dinosaur museum? Instead of going after a teenager who was defending himself from an attack by an extremist mob?

 

[Derec]

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

Where? The video of the seconds before the shooting itself shows Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum.
There is an overhead IR video showing Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum moving toward the car lot. Rittenhouse is behind Rosenbaum at that point, but that does not mean he was chasing him - they could be just moving in the same direction. As they reach the car lot, Rosenbaum goes between two cars. Rittenhouse does not follow. Rosenbaum them comes back and starts chasing Rittenhouse.

There is also testimony that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he got him alone.

I know the notion that Rittenhouse "chased" Rosenbaum is important to the prosecution case, but I do not think that dog will hunt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Note that being shot in the back and facing the shooter are not incompatible.

It's possible to turn to flee faster than the shoot/don't-shoot decision can be changed. Thus someone who has provoked fire but turns to run at the last split second is going to end up shot in the back.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. It's quite possible to carry a loaded firearm with no target in mind. Millions of people do so routinely. Concealed carry permits are not about an intent to shoot someone, but about an intent to be able to defend themselves if something bad happens. (I had a female coworker who carried--purpose, defense against rapists. We have lost contact since we are no longer coworkers but I am not aware of her ever having even drawn her gun.)

 

[Toni]

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.

No. It's quite possible to carry a loaded firearm with no target in mind. Millions of people do so routinely. Concealed carry permits are not about an intent to shoot someone, but about an intent to be able to defend themselves if something bad happens. (I had a female coworker who carried--purpose, defense against rapists. We have lost contact since we are no longer coworkers but I am not aware of her ever having even drawn her gun.)

I never claimed that Rittenhouse had a specific target in mind. Just that he planned to use his weapon…if he needed to. I guess if he were attacked by all those guys, his gun wasn’t such a deterrent, huh?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

SYG is mostly political. There are two practical effects:

1) It prevents the reflexive arrest-the-shooter response police often engage in. Note that it doesn't mean you can't arrest him later if the evidence shows that it wasn't self defense, it just means you don't arrest him reflexively. You don't taint his record with an arrest until there is evidence that an arrest is warranted. It doesn't change the end result, just the path that gets there.

2) It means you can respond to a leave-or-I-will-kill-you threat with deadly force, you aren't obligated to leave.

 

[Arctish]

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

It appears nothing can disabuse you of your prejudices.

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Second, openly carrying the firearm is the demonstration he meant business. It is the outward and visible sign that nobody should attack him. And should somebody attack him, an unloaded firearm would give him away as defenseless.

Rittenhouse isn't being charged with premeditation to kill specific individuals, and no one here is accusing him of that crime.

He is being charged with

1. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death by showing an utter disregard for human life.

2. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This felony charge is also connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinnis told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum.

3. FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This charge is connected to Anthony Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber.

Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it.

4. ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round.

5. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.

6. POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

7. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Kenosha officials imposed an 8 p.m. curfew the night of the shootings. Rittenhouse was still on the streets as midnight approached. The offense is punishable by up to $200 in forfeitures.

Rittenhouse isn't some innocent bystander caught up in events. He knowingly and deliberately put himself into that situation, knowingly and deliberately stayed despite having ample opportunity to leave, and he knowingly and deliberately was carrying a loaded firearm he was not lawfully allowed to have in his possession on the streets of Kenosha.

We have yet to hear a full account of his interactions with Rosenbaum so we really can't conclude who was a fault for their encounter turning violent. But we have reason to believe Rittenhouse brought a gun in order to intimidate protesters and said he was there to defend a car dealership.

The gun was definitely for show but might also have been for use.


ETA: link to list of charges

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Nitpick: I don't think he aimed. I think he was practicing the move he was going to make, not pointing it at any given location. The physical equivalent of an actor saying his lines even though there's nobody there to say them to.

It still does violate basic gun safety, though.

 

[Toni]

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.

No. It's quite possible to carry a loaded firearm with no target in mind. Millions of people do so routinely. Concealed carry permits are not about an intent to shoot someone, but about an intent to be able to defend themselves if something bad happens. (I had a female coworker who carried--purpose, defense against rapists. We have lost contact since we are no longer coworkers but I am not aware of her ever having even drawn her gun.)

True story: I’ve defended myself and others against rape attempts …without a gun or other weapon. Just my 5’2 98 pounds of no means no and I will hurt you did the job. It usually does in cases of acquaintance attacks, which most are.

 

[Toni]

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?

Note that being shot in the back and facing the shooter are not incompatible.

It's possible to turn to flee faster than the shoot/don't-shoot decision can be changed. Thus someone who has provoked fire but turns to run at the last split second is going to end up shot in the back.

Doesn’t that almost always only happen if a cop is the shooter?

 

[Derec]

True story: I’ve defended myself and others against rape attempts …without a gun or other weapon. Just my 5’2 98 pounds of no means no and I will hurt you did the job. It usually does in cases of acquaintance attacks, which most are.

Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz weren't acquaintances of Rittenhouse, so this is not really helpful.
And speaking of rape, I also doubt it would have been very helpful to the 11-year old boys Rosenbaum raped.

 

[Derec]

LMAO at them referring to a pointing stick as "Sister Marciana's pointing device". I guess somebody went to Catholic school ...

 

[Toni]

True story: I’ve defended myself and others against rape attempts …without a gun or other weapon. Just my 5’2 98 pounds of no means no and I will hurt you did the job. It usually does in cases of acquaintance attacks, which most are.

Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz weren't acquaintances of Rittenhouse, so this is not really helpful.
And speaking of rape, I also doubt it would have been very helpful to the 11-year old boys Rosenbaum raped.

True story: I’ve defended myself and others against rape attempts …without a gun or other weapon. Just my 5’2 98 pounds of no means no and I will hurt you did the job. It usually does in cases of acquaintance attacks, which most are.

Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz weren't acquaintances of Rittenhouse, so this is not really helpful.
And speaking of rape, I also doubt it would have been very helpful to the 11-year old boys Rosenbaum raped.

Well, my remark was in response to Loren taking about a female coworker who carried a firearm to protect herself against rape. I doubt that a firearm would have helped that 11 year old, either. No one deserves what happened to him.

No one is arguing that Rosenbaum was a great human being but he wasn’t trying to rape anybody when Rittenhouse shot him. Here’s a pretty decent account of what is/is not true about Rittenhouse’s victims: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/

 

[Metaphor]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Baldwin wasn't incompetent. He relied upon the competence and expertise of the professionals on set who were in charge of ensuring that no loaded weapons were on set. This is something that he SHOULD have been able to rely upon. There is NO reason for a loaded weapon to be on set. There was gross negligence, at the very least, but it was not Baldwin's.

I don't own guns, I have never used a gun, I don't even play one on TV. But I do know gun enthusiasts have told me 'don't ever aim a gun at someone unless you don't mind they are shot'.

My point here is taking and using a loaded gun does not mean you were premeditated to murder. You are begging the question.

Note: From the little that I have been unable to avoid hearing about Baldwin, he sounds like a pretty terrible human being and not someone I would particularly like or enjoy meeting. I doubt we have a lot in common. That does not make him more or less culpable in the death of the person killed or the wounding of the other person.

YES. Carrying a loaded firearm means you intend to shoot it at someone or something. Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't hunting game animals. He carried it into a crowd of people.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

He could not legally own or carry that rifle, loaded or unloaded. He lacked the maturity and the experience to own or to carry a loaded rifle, period, much less in a crowd of people. Moreover, the police DO NOT WANT civilians of any age to carry loaded firearms into crowded demonstrations. Because people end up dead.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm.

Oy gevalt. I am certain that the law does not define what a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm is, and if it does then this whole conversation is pointless.

You are obsessed with the idea that Rittenhouse had to have a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm. I already gave you the most probable actual reason (whether you think it is good or legitimate is up to you): Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he could defend himself if somebody tried to assault him. And it was loaded because if it were not and this was made known to the would be assaulters, then the illusion is broken and the outward and visible sign was useless.

That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

I gave you the probable reason he did it. I am not interested in your opinion of whether that reason was 'legitimate', nor have you explained why having a 'legitimate' reason has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

It appears nothing can disabuse you of your prejudices.

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Second, openly carrying the firearm is the demonstration he meant business. It is the outward and visible sign that nobody should attack him. And should somebody attack him, an unloaded firearm would give him away as defenseless.

So, he was planning to fire his weapon…if someone frightened him.

He was planning to defend himself, should somebody attack him.

Rittenhouse was too young to be in the position he was in. He did not know how to handle himself without the crutch of an illegal weapon. He was so young and so brainwashed that he believed he had to carry a weapon that he was not legally able to carry. Because this scared kid went into a crowd thinking he had to defend…something…two lives were lost, another man was injured and at least 4 lives were destroyed.

You sit there in a country where you will never, ever, ever have to deal with the toxicity fulmated by the NRA and dare to say he had a right to do something

Non. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say he had the right to illegally carry a weapon.

that was illegal for him to do because he was too damn young to handle himself, much less a loaded semiautomatic weapon.

What arrogance. What ignorance.

Your arrogance in this matter is so breathtaking, I can barely imagine I have the oxygen to be arrogant myself.

 

[Metaphor]

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

It appears nothing can disabuse you of your prejudices.

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Second, openly carrying the firearm is the demonstration he meant business. It is the outward and visible sign that nobody should attack him. And should somebody attack him, an unloaded firearm would give him away as defenseless.

Rittenhouse isn't being charged with premeditation to kill specific individuals, and no one here is accusing him of that crime.

He is being charged with

1. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death by showing an utter disregard for human life.

2. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This felony charge is also connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinnis told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum.

3. FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This charge is connected to Anthony Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber.

Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it.

4. ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round.

5. FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.

6. POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

7. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Kenosha officials imposed an 8 p.m. curfew the night of the shootings. Rittenhouse was still on the streets as midnight approached. The offense is punishable by up to $200 in forfeitures.

Rittenhouse isn't some innocent bystander caught up in events. He knowingly and deliberately put himself into that situation,

Irrelevant.

knowingly and deliberately stayed despite having ample opportunity to leave,

Irrelevant.

and he knowingly and deliberately was carrying a loaded firearm he was not lawfully allowed to have in his possession on the streets of Kenosha.

True.

We have yet to hear a full account of his interactions with Rosenbaum so we really can't conclude who was a fault for their encounter turning violent. But we have reason to believe Rittenhouse brought a gun in order to intimidate protesters and said he was there to defend a car dealership.

The gun was definitely for show but might also have been for use.


ETA: link to list of charges

Evidently the list of charges, for some people, is a list of things he has already been proven guilty of.

 

[Toni]

A visual timeline of violence in Kenosha after police shooting of Jacob Blake

Protests grew violent, resulting in the killing Tuesday of two people and the arrest Wednesday of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.usatoday.com

Rittenhouse was a self appointed vigilante who inserted himself into a position where he could wave a gun around and appear on the internet.

At some point, he is barred by the police from re-entering the top of the car dealership he was 'defending.' At this point, there is some kind of confrontation with one of the demonstrators who throws something (plastic bag is mentioned in some accounts) in his direction and Rittenhouse shoots the person who threw the object at him. Others give pursuit to Rittenhouse and the police are on the radio looking for a shooter with a long gun (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shoots two more people who are pursuing him. One of the three men he shot survived.

Rittenhouse set himself up as a vigilante---and in turn, was pursued by others who were seeking to capture someone who shot someone--vigilantes. Two of them were shot by Rittenhouse and one died. The other lost part of his arm.

Please tell me how Rittenhouse was the good guy here any more than the guys he shot. Initially he shot someone who appears to have thrown something at him. Then he was pursued by people who saw him SHOOT someone, killing them. The police were looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). The crowd was looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shot at people in the crowd.

FFS people, until we had the former guy in the white house, this is not how America worked! This is not working in America!

 

[Metaphor]

A visual timeline of violence in Kenosha after police shooting of Jacob Blake

Protests grew violent, resulting in the killing Tuesday of two people and the arrest Wednesday of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.usatoday.com

Rittenhouse was a self appointed vigilante who inserted himself into a position where he could wave a gun around and appear on the internet.

At some point, he is barred by the police from re-entering the top of the car dealership he was 'defending.' At this point, there is some kind of confrontation with one of the demonstrators who throws something (plastic bag is mentioned in some accounts) in his direction and Rittenhouse shoots the person who threw the object at him. Others give pursuit to Rittenhouse and the police are on the radio looking for a shooter with a long gun (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shoots two more people who are pursuing him. One of the three men he shot survived.

Rittenhouse set himself up as a vigilante---and in turn, was pursued by others who were seeking to capture someone who shot someone--vigilantes. Two of them were shot by Rittenhouse and one died. The other lost part of his arm.

Please tell me how Rittenhouse was the good guy here any more than the guys he shot. Initially he shot someone who appears to have thrown something at him. Then he was pursued by people who saw him SHOOT someone, killing them. The police were looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). The crowd was looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shot at people in the crowd.

FFS people, until we had the former guy in the white house, this is not how America worked! This is not working in America!

FFS, nobody claimed Rittenhouse was 'the good guy'. But since you are so sure of yourself that Rittenhouse did not shoot in self-defence, I think you ought save America a good deal of time and money, and simply pronounce your judgment without a trial.

 

[Toni]

A visual timeline of violence in Kenosha after police shooting of Jacob Blake

Protests grew violent, resulting in the killing Tuesday of two people and the arrest Wednesday of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.usatoday.com

Rittenhouse was a self appointed vigilante who inserted himself into a position where he could wave a gun around and appear on the internet.

At some point, he is barred by the police from re-entering the top of the car dealership he was 'defending.' At this point, there is some kind of confrontation with one of the demonstrators who throws something (plastic bag is mentioned in some accounts) in his direction and Rittenhouse shoots the person who threw the object at him. Others give pursuit to Rittenhouse and the police are on the radio looking for a shooter with a long gun (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shoots two more people who are pursuing him. One of the three men he shot survived.

Rittenhouse set himself up as a vigilante---and in turn, was pursued by others who were seeking to capture someone who shot someone--vigilantes. Two of them were shot by Rittenhouse and one died. The other lost part of his arm.

Please tell me how Rittenhouse was the good guy here any more than the guys he shot. Initially he shot someone who appears to have thrown something at him. Then he was pursued by people who saw him SHOOT someone, killing them. The police were looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). The crowd was looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shot at people in the crowd.

FFS people, until we had the former guy in the white house, this is not how America worked! This is not working in America!

FFS, nobody claimed Rittenhouse was 'the good guy'. But since you are so sure of yourself that Rittenhouse did not shoot in self-defence, I think you ought save America a good deal of time and money, and simply pronounce your judgment without a trial.

Really? Lots of people seem to think that Rittenhouse was totally justified, although there is little/no evidence that anyone shot at him and instead, that the last two people he shot were trying to apprehend someone who had shot someone else.

 

[Metaphor]

A visual timeline of violence in Kenosha after police shooting of Jacob Blake

Protests grew violent, resulting in the killing Tuesday of two people and the arrest Wednesday of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.usatoday.com

Rittenhouse was a self appointed vigilante who inserted himself into a position where he could wave a gun around and appear on the internet.

At some point, he is barred by the police from re-entering the top of the car dealership he was 'defending.' At this point, there is some kind of confrontation with one of the demonstrators who throws something (plastic bag is mentioned in some accounts) in his direction and Rittenhouse shoots the person who threw the object at him. Others give pursuit to Rittenhouse and the police are on the radio looking for a shooter with a long gun (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shoots two more people who are pursuing him. One of the three men he shot survived.

Rittenhouse set himself up as a vigilante---and in turn, was pursued by others who were seeking to capture someone who shot someone--vigilantes. Two of them were shot by Rittenhouse and one died. The other lost part of his arm.

Please tell me how Rittenhouse was the good guy here any more than the guys he shot. Initially he shot someone who appears to have thrown something at him. Then he was pursued by people who saw him SHOOT someone, killing them. The police were looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). The crowd was looking for the shooter (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse shot at people in the crowd.

FFS people, until we had the former guy in the white house, this is not how America worked! This is not working in America!

FFS, nobody claimed Rittenhouse was 'the good guy'. But since you are so sure of yourself that Rittenhouse did not shoot in self-defence, I think you ought save America a good deal of time and money, and simply pronounce your judgment without a trial.

Really? Lots of people seem to think that Rittenhouse was totally justified, although there is little/no evidence that anyone shot at him and instead, that the last two people he shot were trying to apprehend someone who had shot someone else.

Yeah there's a difference between those people and you. Those people are in accord with accepted justice systems in non-failed States: innocent until proven guilty.

But you are 'guilty because I say so, because I have determined 'legitimate' reasons to carry a gun, and fuck you'.