Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[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.

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'.

No, you're just projecting your interpretation.

 

[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'.

No, you're just projecting your interpretation.

Sure, luv.

 

[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,

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.

Some folks (like Derec) have already made up their minds but most posters here are waiting for more evidence to come out before deciding what would be an appropriate verdict. And most posters are willing to at least entertain the thought that a 17 year old isn't an adult and shouldn't be expected to act with greater maturity and foresight than the adults around him.

However, Rittenhouse was pretty close to legal adulthood, and he made the choice to 'patrol' the streets of Kenosha with a loaded AR-15. He was responsible for both himself and his weapon.

 

[Toni]

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.

Some folks (like Derec) have already made up their minds but most posters here are waiting for more evidence to come out before deciding what would be an appropriate verdict. And most posters are willing to at least entertain the thought that a 17 year old isn't an adult and shouldn't be expected to act with greater maturity and foresight than the adults around him.

However, Rittenhouse was pretty close to legal adulthood, and he made the choice to 'patrol' the streets of Kenosha with a loaded AR-15. He was responsible for both himself and his weapon.

Yes, I come down on the side that a 17year old is not old enough to legally carry that gun and as far as maturity and brain development, Rittenhouse should never have been allowed to put himself in that position—the person who provided him with that weapon and those who failed to keep him from a volatile situation, especially with a weapon that could only serve to further inflame the situation did him a terrible disservice and bear a great deal if responsibility in the deaths of those men. I don’t think Rittenhouse should have been charged as an adult because of his age. I do think that there should be charged files against some of those adults who encouraged and enabled his actions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Came across this:

Wisconsin law:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

....

(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

[Elixir]

I half hope someone feels threatened by this little twerp, and shoots him in the kneecap in “self defense”.

 

[Toni]

I half hope someone feels threatened by this little twerp, and shoots him in the kneecap in “self defense”.

I hope that in prison, he falls in with better company than he's been keeping. He's already got some awfully huge strikes against him. I hate to write off anyone at 17.

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

People lost their lives as a result of this incident, the dinosaurs were presumably dead for a while before the riot occured.

 

[Toni]

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?

In fact, there were more than 250 arrest related to the Kenosha demonstrations: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...unrest-have-been-surrounding-area/5701286002/
I don't know the status of those cases as none of those other cases reached the level of murder and so receive less publicity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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'.

*spit take*

 

[Derec]

Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa attacker, admits that Rittenhouse only fired when Grossreutz pointed his gun at him and advanced on him.


That's when Rittenhouse "disarmed" him, so to speak ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa attacker, admits that Rittenhouse only fired when Grossreutz pointed his gun at him and advanced on him.


That's when Rittenhouse "disarmed" him, so to speak ...

So this helps Rittenhouse from being convicted of First Degree Murder....

 

[TomC]

Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa attacker, admits that Rittenhouse only fired when Grossreutz pointed his gun at him and advanced on him.


That's when Rittenhouse "disarmed" him, so to speak ...

So this helps Rittenhouse from being convicted of First Degree Murder....

On one of three, apparently.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa attacker, admits that Rittenhouse only fired when Grossreutz pointed his gun at him and advanced on him.


That's when Rittenhouse "disarmed" him, so to speak ...

This is why people don’t trust the media.

 

[TomC]

This is why people don’t trust the media.

Could you explain this a bit?

The media reporting what a witness said is some kind of indictment of the media?
I don't get it.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

This is why people don’t trust the media.

Could you explain this a bit?

The media reporting what a witness said is some kind of indictment of the media?
I don't get it.
Tom

Hearing his actual testimony and omitting that he wasn’t shot until he raised his gun at KR. Yeah, they’re not trying to spin a narrative. His testimony is the best any defendant could hope for in self-defense - admitting KR acted in self-defense. Weirdly, that’s not the headline the AP went with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why people don’t trust the media.

Could you explain this a bit?

The media reporting what a witness said is some kind of indictment of the media?
I don't get it.
Tom

Hearing his actual testimony and omitting that he wasn’t shot until he raised his gun at KR. Yeah, they’re not trying to spin a narrative. His testimony is the best any defendant could hope for in self-defense - admitting KR acted in self-defense. Weirdly, that’s not the headline the AP went with.

That's right folks. You can only defend yourself from an active shooter, if he shoots at you first.

 

[KeepTalking]

Gaige Grosskreutz, the surviving Antifa attacker, admits that Rittenhouse only fired when Grossreutz pointed his gun at him and advanced on him.


That's when Rittenhouse "disarmed" him, so to speak ...

This is why people don’t trust the media.

That's the problem with people today, they fucking misrepresent anything when it suits their idiotic agenda. Case in point, this AP article that says exactly what Trausti says they would not say:
Shooting victim says he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse

 

[KeepTalking]

This is why people don’t trust the media.

Could you explain this a bit?

The media reporting what a witness said is some kind of indictment of the media?
I don't get it.
Tom

Hearing his actual testimony and omitting that he wasn’t shot until he raised his gun at KR. Yeah, they’re not trying to spin a narrative. His testimony is the best any defendant could hope for in self-defense - admitting KR acted in self-defense. Weirdly, that’s not the headline the AP went with.

Are you somehow under the impression that the AP only runs one article on any given event in the news?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not paying attention. Is this right??? So KR was running around with a gun, intending to shoot people. Another white guy saw him and thought, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." So he went to shoot him but got shot himself. Then two other guys charged KR trying to get him but also were shot?