Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Derec]

A crowd saw Rittenhouse shoot an unarmed man and then flee.

An unarmed man who threatened to kill him if he ever got him alone. An unarmed man who attacked him and went for his gun.

They gave chase,

So an angry mob chased a child^*.

much as police officers or security guards might give chase to a bank robber.

Newsflash: these people were neither.

Rittenhouse turned and shot at two of them, one of whom had apparently raised his hands in surrender after seeing Rittenhouse shoot someone else.

AH attacked KR with a skateboard.
GG attacked him with a gun. He himself admitted KR only shot him when he lowered his hands and pointed his gun at KR.

I think it is hard for Rittenhouse to claim self defense.

No, this is clearly self-defense.

^* if you called Trayvon Martin a "child", then why not Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

[KeepTalking]

Please do not relate once again your story of triumphantly fighting off a male would-be rapist when you weighed 98 pounds

This response is quite reprehensible. You can do better Metaphor.

 

[laughing dog]

Please do not relate once again your story of triumphantly fighting off a male would-be rapist when you weighed 98 pounds

This response is quite reprehensible. You can do better Metaphor.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that observation is the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[Toni]

Forgive me but I can't get the quote function to work properly this morning:

Others, including professionals, saw Rosenbaum as a non-threat. Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse IF HE EVER GOT HIM ALONE which clearly, they were very far from alone that night: they were in a crowd. Rosenbaum was not a threat. Rittenhouse was a scared kid who had no business having a gun or of being there.

Those who gave chase to Rittenhouse were not police officers or security guards. Neither was Rittenhouse. Those who gave chase chased a person shoot another person and kill him. They were trying to help police

AH did attack Rittenhouse with a skateboard--he was trying to stop an armed person who had just killed another person.

GG pulled his gun after Rittenhouse aimed at him and fired at him while GG's hands were in the air. The gun did not fire. GG observed Rittenhouse re-rack his gun, preparing to fire at him again.

Rittenhouse cannot claim self defense when he initiated the violence by killing an unarmed man in front of a crowd of people.

The difference between Rittenhouse and Trayvon Martin, aside from a year of age was that Martin was attacked and was unarmed. Martin was walking home from a convenience store. Rittenhouse was illegally carrying a loaded weapon and had just killed an unarmed man when the crowd gave chase, attempting to help the police apprehend a killer.

Oh, and Rittenhouse is white. And the demonstrators were protesting the actions of police shooting a different unarmed man, in front of his 3 young children. Which, of course are both reasons you are so supportive of Rittenhouse.

Unlike you, I see both Rittenhouse and Martin as teenagers, not adults. Rittenhouse committed terrible acts and should be held responsible for them. However, I think he bears the responsibility of a minor, not an adult.

The lesson which should be learned from this, but sadly and clearly isn't and won't be is that it is foolish to take a weapon to a demonstration and armed civilians are not trained professionals. And kids shouldn't have guns.

 

[Toni]

Please do not relate once again your story of triumphantly fighting off a male would-be rapist when you weighed 98 pounds

This response is quite reprehensible. You can do better Metaphor.

Eh, I'm not bothered by Metaphor's reprehensible remarks. It's hardly his worst to date and we all know he'll do worse.

 

[laughing dog]

Your response begs the question why RIttenhouse would feel the need to travel to another state with an illegal firearm

This bullshit has been debunked a number of times on this thread. Rittenhouse was already in the state and he did not cross borders with the firearm.

in order to provide a visible sign to not mess with him to people who he did not know.

I don't know why he went to the protest. It doesn't matter whether I approve of his reason for going to the protest, or whether you do, either.

After all, he could have saved himself all that bother by staying at home.

But feel free to further contort reason with your responses.

He wanted to go to the protest and provide an outward and visible sign that he was not physically vulnerable to the protesters. I am not contorting reason by stating that. It should be fucking obvious to most anybody that that is consistent with his actual actions.

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.

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

 

[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.

I suppose I should be flattered that you think I have that much power but it's just you making this discussion personal in order to attempt to beef up your bad argument.

 

[Toni]

If Rittenhouse intended to murder rioters, I'm pretty fucking sure he would have murdered a lot of them

Metaphor, I am only replying to this quote to show you or anyone how to easily reply to a post without quoting an entire wall of text in that post.

To do so, you don't need to hit reply and then manually delete everything you don't want. All you need to do is shade or highlight only the text in the post that you want to reply to, as shown in this image:

View attachment 35980

To make this post you're reading, I highlighted only the selected text above and then clicked the black Reply button generated underneath the text.

When you shade some text, the forum will create that little black button underneath to which you can click on either "Quote" or "Reply." (I have drawn in that big red arrow pointing to it.)

Click on Reply and you will be transferred to the bottom of the page to the reply box where you can finish your post as shown below.

View attachment 35981

It's easy!

(If you click Quote, it will instead add that same text to the "multiquote" option which you can use to quote from multiple posts at the same time and then add them individually to your post by using the "Insert quotes" button you will see in the reply box at the bottom.)

This is not meant for Metaphor alone, but anyone here on the side of goodness, and not wanting to quote or scroll through entire ginormous posts all the time. Please use this feature for yours and everyone's reading convenience, but mostly mine , until at least the PTB figure out how to limit the number of nested quotes allowed.

Thank you.

I'll practice but my attempt to do what you've been doing failed, hence the horrendously long response. It's really early where I am and also my mouse is still being temperamental so it's even more of a struggle.

 

[ZiprHead]

Are you playing another one of your boring and stupid "gotcha" pedantic games with this "malice aforethought", or are you just pretending to be this obtuse?

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

And he wonders why people react to him with hostility.

 

[J842P]

Forgive me but I can't get the quote function to work properly this morning:

Others, including professionals, saw Rosenbaum as a non-threat. Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse IF HE EVER GOT HIM ALONE which clearly, they were very far from alone that night: they were in a crowd. Rosenbaum was not a threat. Rittenhouse was a scared kid who had no business having a gun or of being there.

Those who gave chase to Rittenhouse were not police officers or security guards. Neither was Rittenhouse. Those who gave chase chased a person shoot another person and kill him. They were trying to help police

AH did attack Rittenhouse with a skateboard--he was trying to stop an armed person who had just killed another person.

So then it is a *clear cut case of self defense*. If Huber or Grosskreutz were on trial, then that could very well be a basis for their own self-defense claim. But they aren't.
The cross examination completely dismantled the prosecution's case on cross examination.

GG pulled his gun after Rittenhouse aimed at him and fired at him while GG's hands were in the air. The gun did not fire. GG observed Rittenhouse re-rack his gun, preparing to fire at him again.

No, Grosskreutz admitted that he ran after Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand during cross examination. Kyle was on the ground after being attacked by no less than two people, one of which tried to kick him in the head, and another, Huber, who landed at least one or two blows to his head with a skateboard, and tried to grab his gun. Grosskreutz admitted, on the stand, that Kyle was in serious danger! He even, unprompted, used the words "head trauma", which is pretty much a text-book justification for deadly force. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him when he had his hands up, and only when he "extended the gun and the gun was pointed in the general direction of Kyles head". Again, completely justified self-defense, out of the prosecution's star-witness' own mouth. Grosskreutz even ran up to Rittenhouse and confronted him verbally and Rittenhouse just kept running. They guy next to Grosskreutz who similarly had and maintained his hands up *did not get shot*. Rittenhouse only ever shot anyone who was a direct and serious threat to his life and limb, and no one else.

Rittenhouse cannot claim self defense when he initiated the violence by killing an unarmed man in front of a crowd of people.

Toni, that is flat-out false and a denial of reality. Rittenhouse absolutely did not initiate the violence. Rosenbaum chased him with another person, who shot a handgun, and then Rosenbaum lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. That is totally justified, clear-cut self defense.

Apparently, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, after hiding behind some cars waiting for him (the prosecution's original claim that Kyle had Chased Rosenbaum was completely dismantled by their own evidence!) probably because Rittenhouse

 

[J842P]

Your response begs the question why RIttenhouse would feel the need to travel to another state with an illegal firearm

This bullshit has been debunked a number of times on this thread. Rittenhouse was already in the state and he did not cross borders with the firearm.

in order to provide a visible sign to not mess with him to people who he did not know.

I don't know why he went to the protest. It doesn't matter whether I approve of his reason for going to the protest, or whether you do, either.

After all, he could have saved himself all that bother by staying at home.

But feel free to further contort reason with your responses.

He wanted to go to the protest and provide an outward and visible sign that he was not physically vulnerable to the protesters. I am not contorting reason by stating that. It should be fucking obvious to most anybody that that is consistent with his actual actions.

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.

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

 

[Toni]

Forgive me but I can't get the quote function to work properly this morning:

Others, including professionals, saw Rosenbaum as a non-threat. Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse IF HE EVER GOT HIM ALONE which clearly, they were very far from alone that night: they were in a crowd. Rosenbaum was not a threat. Rittenhouse was a scared kid who had no business having a gun or of being there.

Those who gave chase to Rittenhouse were not police officers or security guards. Neither was Rittenhouse. Those who gave chase chased a person shoot another person and kill him. They were trying to help police

AH did attack Rittenhouse with a skateboard--he was trying to stop an armed person who had just killed another person.

So then it is a *clear cut case of self defense*. If Huber or Grosskreutz were on trial, then that could very well be a basis for their own self-defense claim. But they aren't.
The cross examination completely dismantled the prosecution's case on cross examination.

GG pulled his gun after Rittenhouse aimed at him and fired at him while GG's hands were in the air. The gun did not fire. GG observed Rittenhouse re-rack his gun, preparing to fire at him again.

No, Grosskreutz admitted that he ran after Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand during cross examination. Kyle was on the ground after being attacked by no less than two people, one of which tried to kick him in the head, and another, Huber, who landed at least one or two blows to his head with a skateboard, and tried to grab his gun. Grosskreutz admitted, on the stand, that Kyle was in serious danger! He even, unprompted, used the words "head trauma", which is pretty much a text-book justification for deadly force. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him when he had his hands up, and only when he "extended the gun and the gun was pointed in the general direction of Kyles head". Again, completely justified self-defense, out of the prosecution's star-witness' own mouth. Grosskreutz even ran up to Rittenhouse and confronted him verbally and Rittenhouse just kept running. They guy next to Grosskreutz who similarly had and maintained his hands up *did not get shot*. Rittenhouse only ever shot anyone who was a direct and serious threat to his life and limb, and no one else.

Rittenhouse cannot claim self defense when he initiated the violence by killing an unarmed man in front of a crowd of people.

Toni, that is flat-out false and a denial of reality. Rittenhouse absolutely did not initiate the violence. Rosenbaum chased him with another person, who shot a handgun, and then Rosenbaum lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. That is totally justified, clear-cut self defense.

Apparently, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, after hiding behind some cars waiting for him (the prosecution's original claim that Kyle had Chased Rosenbaum was completely dismantled by their own evidence!) probably because Rittenhouse

Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, was killed by Rittenhouse. The police were looking for an active shooter —who happened to be Rittenhouse. Others gave chase to someone who had just shot an unarmed man.

Rittenhouse used a semiautomatic weapon and shot and killed someone who was armed with..a skateboard. Rittenhouse’s second kill. Huber tried to disarm the man he saw shoot another man. He ended up dead.

Rittenhouse shot the the third victim who had raised his hands—Rittenhouse refused his surrender and re-racked his weapon and then shot him as well.

There is NO way any of these shootings were justified.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

 

[J842P]

Forgive me but I can't get the quote function to work properly this morning:

Others, including professionals, saw Rosenbaum as a non-threat. Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse IF HE EVER GOT HIM ALONE which clearly, they were very far from alone that night: they were in a crowd. Rosenbaum was not a threat. Rittenhouse was a scared kid who had no business having a gun or of being there.

Those who gave chase to Rittenhouse were not police officers or security guards. Neither was Rittenhouse. Those who gave chase chased a person shoot another person and kill him. They were trying to help police

AH did attack Rittenhouse with a skateboard--he was trying to stop an armed person who had just killed another person.

So then it is a *clear cut case of self defense*. If Huber or Grosskreutz were on trial, then that could very well be a basis for their own self-defense claim. But they aren't.
The cross examination completely dismantled the prosecution's case on cross examination.

GG pulled his gun after Rittenhouse aimed at him and fired at him while GG's hands were in the air. The gun did not fire. GG observed Rittenhouse re-rack his gun, preparing to fire at him again.

No, Grosskreutz admitted that he ran after Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand during cross examination. Kyle was on the ground after being attacked by no less than two people, one of which tried to kick him in the head, and another, Huber, who landed at least one or two blows to his head with a skateboard, and tried to grab his gun. Grosskreutz admitted, on the stand, that Kyle was in serious danger! He even, unprompted, used the words "head trauma", which is pretty much a text-book justification for deadly force. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him when he had his hands up, and only when he "extended the gun and the gun was pointed in the general direction of Kyles head". Again, completely justified self-defense, out of the prosecution's star-witness' own mouth. Grosskreutz even ran up to Rittenhouse and confronted him verbally and Rittenhouse just kept running. They guy next to Grosskreutz who similarly had and maintained his hands up *did not get shot*. Rittenhouse only ever shot anyone who was a direct and serious threat to his life and limb, and no one else.

Rittenhouse cannot claim self defense when he initiated the violence by killing an unarmed man in front of a crowd of people.

Toni, that is flat-out false and a denial of reality. Rittenhouse absolutely did not initiate the violence. Rosenbaum chased him with another person, who shot a handgun, and then Rosenbaum lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. That is totally justified, clear-cut self defense.

Apparently, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, after hiding behind some cars waiting for him (the prosecution's original claim that Kyle had Chased Rosenbaum was completely dismantled by their own evidence!) probably because Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse, who was unarmed, was killed by Rittenhouse. The police were looking for an active shooter —who happened to be Rittenhouse. Others gave chase to someone who had just shot an unarmed man.

Rittenhouse used a semiautomatic weapon and shot and killed someone who was armed with..a skateboard. Rittenhouse’s second kill. He shout the third victim who had raised his hands—refused his surrender abs re-racked his weapon and then shot him as well.

There is NO way any if these shootings were justified.

No Toni, all of those were justified. RIttenhouse killed Rosenbaum who was *attacking him*. It doesn't matter whether or not Rosenbaum was armed, it is still justifiable self defense. What the other two people thought they were doing is irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse acted justifiably. Being attacked, with or without a skateboard, is *makes him justified in defending himself*. Grosskreutz *himself* admitted that he was at risk of serious harm!

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.

 

[J842P]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

That is completely irrelevant. If they *had* killed people who had

1) lunged at them trying to take their gun, screaming "Fuck you" after saying "If I find you alone I'll kill you", after chasing him with another guy who *shot their handgun* and cornering them in the parking lot
2) chased and attacked them, striking their heads while they were on the ground, grabbing at their gun, and in one case, chasing them with a gun extended and pointed at them

Then they would have been justified in using deadly force. This is clear-cut legally. You trying to deny it with bringing up irrelevancies is just downright strange.

 

[J842P]

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

So, you don't think being chased and attacked justifies the use of deadly force? What does, in your opinion? Because the trial has clearly established that Rittenhouse was 1) never the aggressor 2) was put in serious danger by the people he shot.

 

[J842P]

The plain denial in reality throughout this entire thread, the clearly and grossly partisan nature of people's reasoning is, frankly, disgusting.

 

[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.

 

[blastula]

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.