• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

If he was there with that weapon in order to scare off people who might damage property, his having the intent to be there and appear dangerous undermines his claims of innocence and victimhood.
How? Why would being there for that specific purpose make him 'not innocent' and not a victim?

EDIT: A defense of 'self-defense' would not fail just because he came there to be intimidating, nor would it succeed just because he came there as a mistake. A successful defense of self-defense to the charges would depend on the immediate context of the actions, not why he was at an particular place.
 
If he was there with that weapon in order to scare off people who might damage property, his having the intent to be there and appear dangerous undermines his claims of innocence and victimhood.
How? Why would being there for that specific purpose make him 'not innocent' and not a victim?
His claim of innocence is undermined by his choice to put himself in that situation while illegally carrying that weapon. Even the appearance of being willing to use it is troublesome. If he made any statements or gestures that caused people to fear he might shoot them, then he committed simple assault and may have committed aggravated assault.

You don't get to menace people with an assault rifle and then claim innocence if they get angry enough at being menaced to punch you and you kill them.
 
Last edited:
Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.
It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?
Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

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

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.
Rittenhouse also knew he raised his hands. The guy perceived Rittenhouse getting ready to shoot him anyway.

Lots of perceptions going on. Two guys gave chase to someone being hunted by the police fir killing a guy. They perceived Rittenhouse as a dangerous individual. Given his recused of killing abs disabling people, I think they got that right.

Here, some people perceive Rittenhouse to be justified but I honestly cannot imagine why. Is it because Rittenhouse is white? The demonstrators anti-police?
 
Malice aforethought is not involved in any of the charges against KR, it's a strawman. So yes, he is.
So if it is not, what do his intentions in going to the protest have to do with anything?
Because it was a completely idiotic and stupid move. His mom and the people that supplied him with the weapon did him no good.
Well, I would not have supplied a 17 year old with a weapon or driven him to a protest with it. But it is Rittenhouse on trial, not those people.
I think they should be on trial. Again, I think Rittenhouse should not be tried as an adult.
 
Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.
It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?
Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

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

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.
You're not telling the whole story. I too saw the testimony. KR fired his weapon at Grosskreutz while he had his hands up. There was no bullet in the chamber so no bullet to fire. KR then re-racked his weapon and that's when G lowered his arms fearing for his own life. He just didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. If he had he might still have his arm.

You're description was, to say the least, a little self-serving. I won't say what I really think of it.
No, I'm responding to *exactly those claims* as brought up by Toni, I'm not leaving out anything. But fine, this is merely what Grosskreutz claims, after being caught in a major lie about having a firearm by the way. There is no evidence that Rittenhouse shot him in the videos when he had his hands up, and indeed, it doesn't seem like Rittenhouse's gun was pointed anywhere but off to the side while he was barely able to sit up straight after having shot Huber. But *regardless* at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that Grosskruetz is *running at him with a gun in his hand pointed towards him*.
Grossreutz knew that Rittenhouse had shot a man before giving chase and had just witnessed him kill another man. Grosskreutz is the one who had reason to fear Rittenhouse. He just killed 2 men.

As fir ‘barely being able to sit up straight’ after killing Huber, we’re supposed to believe he was prostrated with grief? I don’t think so. He wasn’t too injured to have killed Huber abs he tried to kill Grosskreutz..
 
His claim of innocence is undermined by his choice to put himself in that situation while illegally carrying that weapon. Even the appearance of being willing to use it is troublesome. If he made any statements or gestures that caused people to fear he might shoot them, then he committed simple assault and may have committed aggravated assault.

You don't get to menace people with an assault rifle and then claim innocence if they get angry enough at being menaced to punch you and you kill them.
I don't know what you think 'innocence' means, but even if his actions made people angry enough to assault him, that doesn't mean he did not shoot in self-defense.
 
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?

I don't know exactly where the line falls in this regard.
 
As fir ‘barely being able to sit up straight’ after killing Huber, we’re supposed to believe he was prostrated with grief?
For somebody who routinely accuses me of reading implications into your words, you sure seem adept at doing it to others.

In what universe did that statement imply Rittenhouse was 'prostrated with grief'?
 
Toni wanted to know what 'good' or 'rational' reason Rittenhouse had to be at the protest with a loaded gun. But she asked this in the context of the homicide charges, not charges about carrying an illegal weapon.

If there is a defense for the way Rittenhouse carried his gun illegally, perhaps there is a reason to consider whether he had a 'good' reason to do it. But his use of self-defense in answer to the homicide charges is not dependent on whether Toni thinks he had a 'good' reason to carry a weapon to a protest.
 
Toni wanted to know what 'good' or 'rational' reason Rittenhouse had to be at the protest with a loaded gun. But she asked this in the context of the homicide charges, not charges about carrying an illegal weapon.

If there is a defense for the way Rittenhouse carried his gun illegally, perhaps there is a reason to consider whether he had a 'good' reason to do it. But his use of self-defense in answer to the homicide charges is not dependent on whether Toni thinks he had a 'good' reason to carry a weapon to a protest.
I'll let Tomi answer that since, at least according to you, that's her argument.
 
His claim of innocence is undermined by his choice to put himself in that situation while illegally carrying that weapon. Even the appearance of being willing to use it is troublesome. If he made any statements or gestures that caused people to fear he might shoot them, then he committed simple assault and may have committed aggravated assault.

You don't get to menace people with an assault rifle and then claim innocence if they get angry enough at being menaced to punch you and you kill them.
I don't know what you think 'innocence' means, but even if his actions made people angry enough to assault him, that doesn't mean he did not shoot in self-defense.
I said it undermines his claims. I did not say it completely invalidates them.

Blanket dismissals are as unjustified as blanket condemnations.
 
I said it undermines his claims. I did not say it completely invalidates them.
No, it does not undermine them. Whether he shot people in self-defense is not changed by whether he looked intimidating to people beforehand.
 
Back
Top Bottom