Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Thermal]

Thermal, you're making excuses for Gaige Grosskreutz?

1. He did not unholster his Glock after or as reaction to the Huber shooting.
He took it from it's concealed location in his waistband behind his back, much earlier in the scene, before Kyle Rittenhouse had fired a single bullet there on Sheridan Road.
That is on video, and was presented at trial.

Kyle's weapon was also out and in a firing position before he was even attacked by Rosenbaum. You gotta drop the double standard that it was copasetic for Kyle to have a weapon held at the ready, but no one else could.

2. You overlooked the fact that the individual right ahead of Gaige did NOT get shot, because he stopped advancing and indicated to Kyle that he was standing down.
That is on video, and was presented at trial.

So? Kyle had killed a man and shot at another within a second. It's not like there was a cool-down period. That barrel was still warm.

3. That freakin' nanosecond of hesitation on Gaige's part, while he was lowering the gun to Kyle's head, was all Kyle needed to ascertain what was about to happen to his brain.
His gun jam was now cleared with the forward-assist and a nano-second later, Gaige was disarmed.

In my viewing of the video, Kyle had commited to shoot before the gun swung his way. He was reacting to GG moving towards him.

But again, you're glossing over all the relevant points. There was no reason whatsoever for Grosskreutz to stand in front of a smoking barrel with his hands up if his intent was to shoot. He had all the opportunity in the world to do so. It makes the absolute least amount of sense to walk right up to that rifle with your hands up if your intent was to shoot. You shoot from a few feet back, when the rifle points elsewhere.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Kyle's weapon was also out and in a firing position before he was even attacked by Rosenbaum. You gotta drop the double standard that it was copasetic for Kyle to have a weapon held at the ready, but no one else could.



So? Kyle had killed a man and shot at another within a second. It's not like there was a cool-down period. That barrel was still warm.



In my viewing of the video, Kyle had commited to shoot before the gun swung his way. He was reacting to GG moving towards him.

But again, you're glossing over all the relevant points. There was no reason whatsoever for Grosskreutz to stand in front of a smoking barrel with his hands up if his intent was to shoot. He had all the opportunity in the world to do so. It makes the absolute least amount of sense to walk right up to that rifle with your hands up if your intent was to shoot. You shoot from a few feet back, when the rifle points elsewhere.

The real lesson is that, in these open carry states, whoever survives a shootout in the street is very likely to have a credible self defense claim.

Gaige either never should have approached Rittenhouse, or he should have fired without hesitation. There's no tenable middle ground.

Kyle either should have been allowed to leave unmolested or killed as quickly as possible, trying to apprehend him was a tactical mistake. Hopefully this lesson is learned from this debacle.

 

[Thermal]

There was absolutely no reason for Grosskreutz to put himself at this extreme risk if his intent was to shoot.

I have showed why he DID have reasons, and you derided my explanation as ridiculous.

Gaige was affiliated with a 'social justice' group called the People's Revolution Movement, and encouraging a civil war is part of their goals, which I linked to previously in this thread. See: {Post #1283}
Also -- https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/01/30/the-peoples-revolution/

Those aren't reasons. Those are wild speculation unfounded in the evidence.

Did Grosskreutz testify to trying to start a civil war, or sharing that belief? If no, to the trash bin with that speculation.

You could just as well argue that a Republican must, by virtue of his affiliation, be a neo-fascist white supremacist. But that's not the case, either.

Show that Gaige Grosskreutz has these civil war dreams you theorize. Not some website that doesn't even mention him; GG himself. Then we can at least take your motivational speculation seriously. Although it does not address why GG didn't just shoot from 5 feet away. You still have to explain why in the world anyone would walk up to a smoking rifle with their hands up if the intent was to shoot them.

eta: your links, btw, continue to not mention Grosskreutz at all.

 

[Suddenly]

The real lesson is that, in these open carry states, whoever survives a shootout in the street is very likely to have a credible self defense claim.

This can't be emphasized enough. It is the one thing from this that needs to be addressed because this isn't consistent with a peaceful and lawful society.

It threatens to be like James Harden jumping into people to draw fouls except with guns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Two quotes from the Chicago Tribune link that I previously provided:
"He also testified he had not positioned himself in a way that suggested he intended to shoot."

He denied that he wanted to fire at Mr. Rittenhouse, and I see no reason to doubt him.

"“It’s not the kind of person I am,” Grosskreutz said. “It’s not why I was out there. It’s not why I was out there for 75 days prior to that. Why I, up until that time, spent my time, money, my education providing care for people. It’s not who I am. And definitely not somebody that I would want to become.”"

Although I can't mind-read, I tend to think that the interaction between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz didn't have a villain. Grosskreutz thought there was a bad person trying to gun down a bunch of people, not being aware of the circumstances of the prior two altercations. Rittenhouse thought Grosskreutz was yet another person trying to attack and harm them. I don't think that Grosskreutz's comment is inaccurate.

 

[theprestige]

I am inclined to believe him. His gun was out because Kyle was actively shooting, Hell, he had just killed Huber right in front of him a second before. Would you keep your weapon holstered with an active shooter right smack in front of you?

If I didn't intend to shoot the guy, yeah I'd keep it holstered.

That said, if there was an active shooter right smack in front of me, I'd probably intend to shoot the guy.

Meanwhile, being an accomplice in a felony doesn't privilege you with self-defense when the victim starts fighting back.

 

[Ziggurat]

If, in fact, he felt he was firing to stop a shooting in progress, that’s hardly “attempted murder”.

Only if GG had legitimate reason to believe Kyle's shootings were not legal, and I don't think GG did. You can't kill someone for engaging in self defense. Moreover, GG isn't claiming that he was going to fire on Kyle in order to protect anyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

Kyle's weapon was also out and in a firing position before he was even attacked by Rosenbaum.

What exactly do you think qualifies as a "firing position"?

You gotta drop the double standard that it was copasetic for Kyle to have a weapon held at the ready, but no one else could.

Kyle didn't shoot GG because GG had his gun "at the ready". He shot GG because GG pointed his gun at Kyle. When GG had his gun at the ready but not pointed at Kyle, Kyle did not shoot.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This can't be emphasized enough. It is the one thing from this that needs to be addressed because this isn't consistent with a peaceful and lawful society.

It threatens to be like James Harden jumping into people to draw fouls except with guns.

I'm pretty stridently pro-gun, but it is becoming increasingly clear that open carry laws are pretty stupid and are routinely used by the most belligerent, dangerous people as a way to lawfully engage in armed intimidation that is uniquely provocative.

Very unlikely that this is going to change in red states though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Only if GG had legitimate reason to believe Kyle's shootings were not legal, and I don't think GG did. You can't kill someone for engaging in self defense. Moreover, GG isn't claiming that he was going to fire on Kyle in order to protect anyone.

I can easily see how GG may NOT have been fully aware that Rittenhouse was acting entirely in self defense.

Honestly, I think the attempts to slander Grosskewitz as a "bad guy" are just as bad as the attempts to slander Rittenhouse as a "bad guy".

Sometimes there really is no villain, and while the entire situation was sucky end to end, GG's involvement seems to have been well-intentioned and not nefarious. No more nefarious than Rittenhouse's involvement.

 

[webfusion]

https://twitter.com/TheKavernacle
This fellow declared that he's producing a video on Friday.
"Probably going to do a video on Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday - been putting it off for a while because the whole thing just depresses me. He’s now acting like a celebrity - he’s only famous for killing two people…"

45 minutes ago, he asked his followers if he still should do that video project.
I think he should. What does he have to lose? Jump on the bandwagon, Kav.

 

[mgidm86]

To me, the laws that allow this kind of behavior to be interpreted as legal are the biggest problem. This guy deliberately put himself in this position by illegally bringing a firearm somewhere he had no business being with one. He went out of his way to make this happen, and evidence not allowed into trial supports this. He got what he wanted and fantasized about.

 

[Thermal]

What exactly do you think qualifies as a "firing position"?

I ain't speaking in Greek here, Jackson.

In this case, a position where the grip is held in one hand, the other on the forestock, barrel pointed towards the target. As in a trigger squeeze away from firing.

Kyle didn't shoot GG because GG had his gun "at the ready". He shot GG because GG pointed his gun at Kyle. When GG had his gun at the ready but not pointed at Kyle, Kyle did not shoot.

Back to the same double standard. In the exchange between GG and KR, Kyle absolutely, unequivically first pointed his rifle in its firing position at Grosskreutz. By your own reasoning, Kyle is the instigator of a violent exchange at that point. Anything Grosskreutz did would be defending against Kyle's menacing him by pointing a rifle at him, when GG had not pointed anything at him yet.

If, as you say, pointing a weapon makes you a lethal threat, then Kyle was the lethal threat from the beginning of their one-second exchange.

 

[webfusion]

To me, the laws that allow this kind of behavior to be interpreted as legal are the biggest problem. This guy deliberately put himself in this position by illegally bringing a firearm somewhere he had no business being with one. He went out of his way to make this happen, and evidence not allowed into trial supports this. He got what he wanted and fantasized about.

I we should take the advice of your signature. "Stop feeding the trolls PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Apparently YOU are trolling, here.

The Laws that allow this kind of behavior are enshrined in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Second Amendment.

Kyle Rittenhouse and all the other citizens legally with long guns on the streets of Kenosha had every right to be there. JoAnn Fiedler, with her handgun open-carried, had every legal right to be there. The court ruled that Kyle carrying that long gun was NOT illegal. The charges (regarding the 'illegality' of having that weapon) against Kyle Rittenhouse were dismissed, with prejudice. In other words, all claims of it being 'illegal' are baseless at this late date. In other words, factually unsupported. In other words, trolling on your part, mgidm86.


How come you ignored two of the actors who initially attacked Kyle? --- Gaige Grosskreutz, with an illegal handgun (an expired permit for his concealed carry) and Joshua Ziminski with a handgun (he is still facing trial for his actions that night).

By the way, Kyle Rittenhouse did not "get what he wanted" --- what he wanted was people who were inherently violent and committing arson and fighting with the police, to go away and stop their destruction of businesses and property belonging to the good citizens of Kenosha.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm pretty stridently pro-gun, but it is becoming increasingly clear that open carry laws are pretty stupid and are routinely used by the most belligerent, dangerous people as a way to lawfully engage in armed intimidation that is uniquely provocative.

Very unlikely that this is going to change in red states though.

I think a lot depends on where one lives and what is being open carried.

Here in rural E TN and N GA, it’s still a bit unusual, but not rare, to see someone in WalMart or a grocery with a handgun exposed in a holster. At first, I tend to find it odd, but on reflection these folks are NOT the ones we have to worry about. Gun crime is vanishingly rare in the counties I live in, and the vast majority of people own guns, usually multiple ones.

That said, go 25 miles east to Knoxville, or worse, 100 miles south to Atlanta, and gun crime is a daily occurrence and gun homicides nearly so. So it might make sense to have different carry laws for different environs - though some of the most dangerous cities already have the most restrictive laws, so there’s that.

THAT said, the open carry of rifles in public, other than for sport or hunting, seems unnecessary and to be simple posturing. Certainly not on State House’s steps or demonstrations, let’s say. Like many, I feel like something needs to be done - exactly what is the issue.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think a lot depends on where one lives and what is being open carried.

Here in rural E TN and N GA, it’s still a bit unusual, but not rare, to see someone in WalMart or a grocery with a handgun exposed in a holster. At first, I tend to find it odd, but on reflection these folks are NOT the ones we have to worry about. Gun crime is vanishingly rare in the counties I live in, and the vast majority of people own guns, usually multiple ones.

That said, go 25 miles east to Knoxville, or worse, 100 miles south to Atlanta, and gun crime is a daily occurrence and gun homicides nearly so. So it might make sense to have different carry laws for different environs - though some of the most dangerous cities already have the most restrictive laws, so there’s that.

THAT said, the open carry of rifles in public, other than for sport or hunting, seems unnecessary and to be simple posturing. Certainly not on State House’s steps or demonstrations, let’s say. Like many, I feel like something needs to be done - exactly what is the issue.

I'm not saying that everyone who open carries is trying to cause a scene, i'm saying these laws make it way, way too easy for cowards to go on an ego trip. It's easy to puff out your chest and bully people around if you have a gun at your hip and you don't have to worry about getting punched in the nose for being an *******.

There's a lot of people out there where open carrying a gun releases their inhibitions to act like belligerent jackasses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To me, the laws that allow this kind of behavior to be interpreted as legal are the biggest problem. This guy deliberately put himself in this position by illegally bringing a firearm somewhere he had no business being with one. He went out of his way to make this happen, and evidence not allowed into trial supports this. He got what he wanted and fantasized about.

That female deliberately put themself into this position by illegally drinking a lot of alcohol at a frat party they had no business being at in the first place. They went out of their way to make their rape occur, and the evidence of them being drunk and underage not being allowed into trial supports this.



I agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's the follow-on that I completely disagree with. The implication is that because they shouldn't have been there... they should be obligated to allow themself to be attacked, beaten, and potentially injured or even killed as a result of their prior bad decision.

It is exactly parallel to arguing that because an underage female gets drunk at a frat party they shouldn't have been at, they are obligated to allow themself to be raped as a result of their prior bad decision.

It's a dumb argument. It's also an incredibly steep slippery slope. Like, a genuine slippery slope, not an artificial fallacious one.

If we allow prior bad decisions of Person A to negate the right to self-defense, or to negate the crimes committed by Person B, it gets really idiotic really fast.

Bob was in a dangerous neighborhood, and had just bought illegal drugs. Bob had committed a crime and made a bad decision, and had no business being in that area in the first place. Therefore, when Joe mugs Bob, Bob has no right to defend themself against an armed robber. Bob is now obligated to surrender his possessions, and to be beaten and potentially killed. Bob put themself in that position, right?

Julie does meth and is married to a violent abuser. Cliff regularly beats the crap out of Julie. But Julie does illegal things and chose to be in that situation, so Julie has no right to fight back or to defend themself. They put themself in that position, after all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I ain't speaking in Greek here, Jackson.

In this case, a position where the grip is held in one hand, the other on the forestock, barrel pointed towards the target. As in a trigger squeeze away from firing.



Back to the same double standard. In the exchange between GG and KR, Kyle absolutely, unequivically first pointed his rifle in its firing position at Grosskreutz. By your own reasoning, Kyle is the instigator of a violent exchange at that point. Anything Grosskreutz did would be defending against Kyle's menacing him by pointing a rifle at him, when GG had not pointed anything at him yet.

If, as you say, pointing a weapon makes you a lethal threat, then Kyle was the lethal threat from the beginning of their one-second exchange.

Let's consider a scenario. Let's say Alfred is in gang territory, carrying a hunting rifle. They really ought to know better, but hey, they made an idiotic choice.

A gang of neighborhood hooligans rushes Alfred. The nearest guy in the gang is armed with a machete. Alfred runs away from John at first, but John is chasing Alfred. So Alfred turns and shoots John, because John seems like a credible threat.

But the rest of the gang is also chasing Alfred. One of the gang members, Rupert, has a two-by-four in his hands, and swings it at Alfred's head. Alfred shoots Rupert too, because Rupert sure seems like a credible threat to Alfred.

Now yet another gang member heads toward Alfred, and this one, Percy, has a pistol. Percy isn't pointing it at Alfred, but he has it out. Alfred aims their rifle at Percy, but doesn't immediately shoot Percy because Percy isn't aiming at him. Percy, however, brings their pistol down to aim at Alfred, at which point Alfred shoots Percy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is Alfred the instigator of a violent exchange with Percy?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not saying that everyone who open carries is trying to cause a scene, i'm saying these laws make it way, way too easy for cowards to go on an ego trip. It's easy to puff out your chest and bully people around if you have a gun at your hip and you don't have to worry about getting punched in the nose for being an *******.

There's a lot of people out there where open carrying a gun releases their inhibitions to act like belligerent jackasses.

Just for consideration, the vast majority of situations in which people openly carry are for hunting, and in areas where there's a real risk of danger from wildlife.

I could certainly see disallowing open carry in urban centers, for the most part. But food for thought... I think disallowing open carry would not go over well in say, Anchorage, where bears and moose regularly come into town and attack people.

This particularly situation, during a riot, was a bit exceptional. In reality, most people who open carry are NOT on some kind of ego trip hoping for someone to start ****.

 

[Thermal]

That female deliberately put themself into this position by illegally drinking a lot of alcohol at a frat party they had no business being at in the first place. They went out of their way to make their rape occur, and the evidence of them being drunk and underage not being allowed into trial supports this.



I agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's the follow-on that I completely disagree with. The implication is that because they shouldn't have been there... they should be obligated to allow themself to be attacked, beaten, and potentially injured or even killed as a result of their prior bad decision.

It is exactly parallel to arguing that because an underage female gets drunk at a frat party they shouldn't have been at, they are obligated to allow themself to be raped as a result of their prior bad decision.

It's a dumb argument. It's also an incredibly steep slippery slope. Like, a genuine slippery slope, not an artificial fallacious one.

If we allow prior bad decisions of Person A to negate the right to self-defense, or to negate the crimes committed by Person B, it gets really idiotic really fast.

Bob was in a dangerous neighborhood, and had just bought illegal drugs. Bob had committed a crime and made a bad decision, and had no business being in that area in the first place. Therefore, when Joe mugs Bob, Bob has no right to defend themself against an armed robber. Bob is now obligated to surrender his possessions, and to be beaten and potentially killed. Bob put themself in that position, right?

Julie does meth and is married to a violent abuser. Cliff regularly beats the crap out of Julie. But Julie does illegal things and chose to be in that situation, so Julie has no right to fight back or to defend themself. They put themself in that position, after all.

You forgot to mention in your scenarios to include an extremely expensive and high powered weapon being procured prior to any of the illegal activities, and to wave it in the faces of the other participants prior to anything happening. It's more equivalent to Bob holding a gun under Joe's nose as they met on the street, and Julie pointing it at Cliff from their first meeting.

Kyle felt no need whatsoever to open carry at any time in his youthful life. E capt this particular night. Then it was not merely a self-defense backup tool; it was a very expensive people killer. This outcome was not some unforeseen eventuality. It was paknstakenly planned for. Then actually made to happen. By Kyle.

And of course, the proportionality response. You place yourself in opposition to rioters, you can expect hostilities, and to be assaulted. Its something you should be expecting. So when you carry a rifle, you need to exercise a ton of additional restraint. Kyle just speed down his leg and fired at the first whif of a baggie being tossed at him.

Of course you have the right to defend yourself if your life is menaced. Would you agree that since you went out of your way to provoke a situation, you should be prepared to exercise supreme restraint, rather than shoot-am-all?