Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Toni]

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....

If I understand things correctly, Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum ( described by another armed self appointed ‘defender’, albeit one with actual experience as not an actual threat to anyone) and then fled. Rittenhouse was pursued by various individuals who sought to apprehend a person who killed another person. Rittenhouse then killed Huber and then shot at and struck Grossreutz, wounding but not killing him.

From the perspective of Grossreutz and Huber, (and others pursuing Rittenhouse)they were attempting to apprehend an individual who had just murdered another person.

I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting the last two victims, who, admittedly were playing police officer as had Rittenhouse been doing.

Imagine that instead of killing a man, Rittenhouse had just rubbed a bank. Would anyone think that he was then justified in killing those who gave chase?

Of course not. They would be considered heroes for trying to stop a bank robber. Rittenhouse would get zero pass at shooting at them, killing one man and disabling the other man.

Instead, Rittenhouse killed a man others saw as no threat, fled and…he gets a pass for shooting two of the people pursuing who they thought (correctly) had just killed a man?

A human life is expendable but stealing from a bank is not justifiable? Is that what we’re saying?

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

Not quite, the other two were both shot before Grosskreutz pulled his gun.

 

[Toni]

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?

First guy Rittenhouse shot didn’t have a gun.

 

[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?

Not quite, the other two were both shot before Grosskreutz pulled his gun.

Holy crap. So KR said he wanted to go somewhere to shoot people. Then at a later date, KR was running around with a gun, then shot someone. Then another white guy pulls out a gun and KR shoots him. Then someone tries to take KR down, thinking he was an active shooter which he was, and KR shot him, too. Did I get that right this time?? It sounds less and less like self-defense and I am not sure why conservatives are screaming about the other white guy pulling out a gun in reaction to KR shooting someone. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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?

Not quite, the other two were both shot before Grosskreutz pulled his gun.

Holy crap. So KR said he wanted to go somewhere to shoot people. Then at a later date, KR was running around with a gun, then shot someone. Then another white guy pulls out a gun and KR shoots him. Then someone tries to take KR down, thinking he was an active shooter which he was, and KR shot him, too. Did I get that right this time?? It sounds less and less like self-defense and I am not sure why conservatives are screaming about the other white guy pulling out a gun in reaction to KR shooting someone. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

I think it’s the “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun” but we get to choose who is the good and who is the bad based on their political ideologies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Not quite, the other two were both shot before Grosskreutz pulled his gun.

Holy crap. So KR said he wanted to go somewhere to shoot people. Then at a later date, KR was running around with a gun, then shot someone. Then another white guy pulls out a gun and KR shoots him. Then someone tries to take KR down, thinking he was an active shooter which he was, and KR shot him, too. Did I get that right this time?? It sounds less and less like self-defense and I am not sure why conservatives are screaming about the other white guy pulling out a gun in reaction to KR shooting someone. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

I think it’s the “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun” but we get to choose who is the good and who is the bad based on their political ideologies.

It is a weird situation, because obnoxious gun owners can't refer to Rittenhouse as the responsible gun owner in this situation. But it hasn't stopped them from supporting him for creating his own little mass murder event. They get over the "murder" label by labeling the protestors as "Antifa".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

Say A initiates violence, B decides to go after A, A runs away, B gives chase, both have guns, and B shoots and is going to kill A unless A shoots back. Does A have a legal obligation not to shoot back, even though that means certain death?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

Say A initiates violence, B decides to go after A, A runs away, B gives chase, both have guns, and B shoots and is going to kill A unless A shoots back. Does A have a legal obligation not to shoot back, even though that means certain death?

That doesn't seem representative of the situation. It seems more like A is documented as saying, "Hey I want to go there and shoot those jerks." Then, he goes there and shoots one of the people. B and C are giving chase but their motivations are not entirely confidently known; it could be that B and C want revenge but it also could be that B is trying to subdue A with a weaponized skateboard and C and trying to chase him down only to use the gun if necessary. Then, A shoots C. A might have been in more immediate danger from B due to the weaponized skateboard and shoots B, too.

 

[Toni]

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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

He was defending himself in the same way that an active shooter seeking escape defends themself against those who seek to stop the active shooter.

In the first shooting, Rittenhouse was defending himself against…a plastic bag. Others saw Rosenbaum and recognized him as a non-threat, which Rittenhouse was unable to do, probably in part because he was 17.

 

[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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

Say A initiates violence, B decides to go after A, A runs away, B gives chase, both have guns, and B shoots and is going to kill A unless A shoots back. Does A have a legal obligation not to shoot back, even though that means certain death?

LP has a pretty low bar for reaching self defense protocol, when he is asking questions...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

Say A initiates violence, B decides to go after A, A runs away, B gives chase, both have guns, and B shoots and is going to kill A unless A shoots back. Does A have a legal obligation not to shoot back, even though that means certain death?

That doesn't seem representative of the situation. It seems more like A is documented as saying, "Hey I want to go there and shoot those jerks." Then, he goes there and shoots one of the people. B and C are giving chase but their motivations are not entirely confidently known; it could be that B and C want revenge but it also could be that B is trying to subdue A with a weaponized skateboard and C and trying to chase him down only to use the gun if necessary. Then, A shoots C. A might have been in more immediate danger from B due to the weaponized skateboard and shoots B, too.

My question was not meant to represent this particular situation, but to challenge Loren's legal claim.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Indeed.

Never mind that bit about attempting to stop an active shooter being admirable, putting oneself in harm's way to protect others being heroic, or carrying a gun for self defense being the Right of Every American. The only standard for determining right from wrong that racists, neo-Nazis, and right wingers employ is "did the shooter kill or maim people who disagree with me?".

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

 

[ZiprHead]

We have a thread for the Baldwin debacle in the media forum. This is a derail here. Please stop these posts while I move the previous posts to the other thread. Thanks.

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

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 did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

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 did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

Really?

And you got your law degree from where?

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

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 did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

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 did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

The only point to Metaphor’s calling me out …. Was to call me out and not to engage in any meaningful discussion. I think we are all familiar with Metaohor’s grasp of US federal abs state law, and in his reasoning.

 

[Toni]

I just keep thinking about how different this entire thing would have played out if Rittenhouse were black or if the demonstrators were neo-Nazis…..