Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Elixir]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that. I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT. And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

This article says the YMCA confirmed he worked there and was furloughed March 2020. Doesn't say what he did there. He claims to be a Certified Lifeguard which means CPR and what not. I haven't seen that debunked... yet.

He claims he was a EMT Cadet for the Antioch FD.

So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that.

He worked at a pool in Pleasant Prairie In Kenosha County, less than 10 mi. from the shooting location.

Yes. That does not make him a member of the Kenosha community, though.

He worked there the day before the shooting. He was staying at his friend's house in WI on the day of the shooting. That house in WI is where his gun had always been kept, not in IL.

And most likely he stayed there because of his reasons to be involved in the things he was doing, rather than that it was a coincidence he stayed there with a friend who purchased a gun for no reason. This doesn't give anyone free interpretation to say he was an EMT who was a member of the Kenosha community.

His home was in Antioch, IL which is near the border of WI, and just 20 mi. from Kenosha. This whole "he crossed state lines" line was always a dumb canard, and people are still saying it.

I am not saying that. His residence was definitely Antioch, IL, 21 miles away. I would not claim I was a member of a community that is 21 miles from my home. There are many such places and many even closer. I would not claim I was a member of any of those communities because it would be stretching the meaning of words to suit an agenda.

I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT.

Whether he was an EMT isn't a mystery. He admitted in court that he had lied about it.

Yes, indeed. He isn't honest.

And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

I mean, I live in a location. I work in another location. I have family and especially in-laws in other locations, some of which are neighboring towns and some of which are further out, some of my biologically related family is in another state and in other countries. I don't claim I am a member of the community where I work and I certainly wouldn't claim I am a member of a community that is 7 miles away. I also wouldn't claim I am a member of a community of a town that is neighboring to my "town," merely because I have relatives there.

To try to make some kind of analogy here: If I was a dishwasher in Brooklyn, I wouldn't claim to be a restaurant owner in Westchester county.

He did say it was his community. Maybe it's a SLIGHT stretch for him to say it, but it's probably not worth much thought compared to other issues.

It's a stretch to suit a narrative. He is trying to say he was just there because it's his community, but it isn't. There's a video of him implying he wants to shoot people. He was using semantic deception to not give the prosecutor any leeway in uncovering his motivation for being there.

I realize it isn't the greatest point and that's why I just posted a photo and left it at that, but now people want to engage in argument over a lesser point and even pretend I am saying something I am not because conservative humor is punching down and making up stuff. No, not you--thebeave.

This isn't complicated. Think about yourself. Would you claim your community was 21 miles away from your residence, even if you worked part-time and got layed off from a job 7 miles from there? I wouldn't. I mean, I work 33 miles from my home and there's a city some 10 miles from there. I had family there at one point residing in the city. If I claimed I was a member of the community, it would feel like a giant lie. Wouldn't it for you, too?

 

[Toni]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?

 

[ZiprHead]

I agree with you on both counts. While I am very unsure he is deserving of self-defense, there are enough people out there who are going to support him over that. I have not been focusing on calling him a murderer, even though one poster here is screaming that I want him to be mega super guilty and that I am clutching pearls. Instead, I am showing KR isn't honest, KR's motivations were not 100% pure, and he was reckless. To the extent he was reckless and devalued human life, regardless of his personal hero narrative, he is undeserving of self-defense claims. That means, I deduce he ought not have a self-defense defense for particular criminal charges related to recklessness and the devaluation of human life...but that other charges unrelated to recklessness and unrelated to devaluation of human life may have a self-defense defense or may not be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I agree it's quite likely he will get off on some of the charges. Juries cannot be punished for not following the law. But that doesn't change the law. And the law is as I had stated it above.

But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

That's why KR was charged as he was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So for you, arming 17-year old racists — Rittenhouse is a Proud Boys wannabe — with assault weapons and having them assist police is part of the solution?

I think you pointed to the heart of the problem. He's a Proud Boy wannabe--and using Proud Boy tactics. Illegal violence. Oops--someone didn't just take it and now he's under threat but with unclean hands. Improper self defense.

 

[Elixir]

…now he's under threat but with unclean hands.

HE is under threat? The minute he is put back on the street, WE are under threat.
I hope appropriate measures are taken.

 

[blastula]

This is a prosecution attorney showing the judge the place in a video which they say shows KR pointing his gun at Ziminski. I couldn't see it on my screen. They want to blow up a still of the image for the jury, and were arguing whether it should be allowed. The in-the-tank judge allowed it.



"Back and to the left."

 

[jab]

I don't think that's entirely true. Your rights drop considerably while you are doing criminal activity.

Criminal activity like setting fires or attacking a child^*?

^* If 17 year old Trayvon is always referred to as a "child" on here, why not 17 year old Kyle?

Strange how you reverse your stance when the "child" is white.

One boy was illegally armed and out looking for trouble. The other boy was black.

 

[Metaphor]

A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,

No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He said he did tell them, but they told him to get out of there.

Hey now.

So that was over trying to introduce this evidence, which he had not allowed.

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

Kenosha prosecutors say a new video provides "crucial insight" into Kyle Rittenhouse's vigilante state of mind in summer 2020.

www.insider.com

Binger says should be because KR testified he knows you can't use deadly force to protect property and also testified about what he said to yellow pants guy that night. That guy had said to him in a video that KR had pointed his gun at him for sitting on a car. And KR testified he replied to him "I did" but he testified he was being sarcastic (a blatant lie).

So he started to introduce that earlier incident, "you had previously indicated you wished you had your AR 15 to protect someone's property, correct." And the judge was not having it.

Justified Fate of Jungle Savages

People who have no respect for property deserve to become property.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name

Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.

 

[SLD]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?

No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And just a reminder from the left: the rape of teenagers is funny

Schizophrenic Statists

Not only are Leftist sick sadistically, but they also have a secret desire to be raped by some sweaty career-criminal thug.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, he'll walk.
And like every teen that gets away with shit, he'll begin to believe he's untouchable.
He'll go on to start taking pot shots at demonstrations, Democrat campaign busses, or some such.
Until his next crime is so egregious even Trump as the Judge couldn't get him off.

Statists' Senseless Static

And off we go into the wild blue-state yonder.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.

We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.

 

[none]

Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.

We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.

hehehe... dude ever witness the B1 flying wing maiden flight overhead??? hehehe... "carpet bomb" lol

 

[none]

And just a reminder from the left: the rape of teenagers is funny

and a message from the right is "he cried", no shit Rittenhouse you don't have to drop the soap.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name

Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.

Where do I find this in the law?

 

[ZiprHead]

Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.

We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.

Patriots? Ha! You make me laugh. When right-wing assholes refuse to get a little shot and wear a simple mask to help country they are far from patriotic.

 

[Toni]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?

No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.

I would argue that a person too young to legally carry a semiautomatic weapon into a crowded demonstration DID put a lot of people in immediate danger. Anyone could have grabbed that weapon away from that kid and started shooting. I would argue that Rittenhouse DID indeed go to that demonstration intending to shoot ‘bad guys.’

I would further argue that the men who pursued Rittenhouse were acting in the same good faith that supposedly Rittenhouse was acting under: they were chasing someone sought by police, who had just killed an unarmed man.

I don’t agree that the first shooting was justified. But if you think Rittenhouse was justified in the first instance, you certainly should understand the actions of the second and third man: they were trying to apprehend a under suspect—which, I believe, was Rittenhouse’s wet dream.