Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Brainster]

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.

I just love this attitude that there is something wrong with placing yourself in opposition to rioters and therefore it is your fault if somebody assaults you. The rioters are just exercising their right to self-defense riot without interference?

 

[Thermal]

I just love this attitude that there is something wrong with placing yourself in opposition to rioters and therefore it is your fault if somebody assaults you. The rioters are just exercising their right to self-defense riot without interference?

Not at all. I'm saying that if you place yourself willingly and deliberately, for absolutely no reason, into a fight, then you are a mutual combatant, not some innocent victim.

If you hear about a bar brawl, and race over to jump in, you are a mutual participant, not a doe-eyed victim.

 

[Brainster]

Not at all. I'm saying that if you place yourself willingly and deliberately, for absolutely no reason, into a fight, then you are a mutual combatant, not some innocent victim.

If you hear about a bar brawl, and race over to jump in, you are a mutual participant, not a doe-eyed victim.

And somehow this does not apply to Rosenbaum, Huber, et al?

 

[Thermal]

And somehow this does not apply to Rosenbaum, Huber, et al?

Of course it does. Why do you ask?

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

This is what you said:

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

If you meant Rosenbaum, then you're just wrong. Kyle wasn't pointing the weapon at Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum attacked him. If you meant GG but accidentally wrote Rosenbaum, it's your own fault that you were misunderstood.

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.

Well, no.

First off, pointing a gun is not the only aggressive thing a person can do. Charging them is also aggressive, particularly if they are in a vulnerable position (which Kyle was). And GG rushed Kyle after Kyle had just been attacked multiple times and was in a vulnerable position. So there's more at play here than just who pointed first.

But perhaps even more importantly, GG cannot claim self defense, because he has denied that was his intention. Even if you think self defense was warranted under the circumstances, that is explicitly not what GG said he was doing. Therefore that defense is precluded. Similarly, Kyle cannot claim that any of his shots were accidental AND that they qualify as self defense. These are mutually exclusive claims. GG eliminated the possibility of any self defense claim by his own testimony.

And lastly, it doesn't even matter. Even if GG was entitled to self defense against Kyle, that's only relevant if GG is on trial, which he isn't. Any hypothetical claim GG could have to self defense (which, again, he has already precluded) has absolutely ZERO relevance to Kyle's trial. And what matters in Kyle's trial is what he was experiencing, not what GG was experiencing.

If, as you say, pointing a weapon makes you a lethal threat

I never said that. I never WOULD say that. The most obvious reason is that "lethal threat" isn't an actual legal standard. "Deadly threat" is a relevant legal standard. And pointing a weapon CAN make you a deadly threat, but (luckily for the prosecutor) that's not always the case.

 

[mgidm86]

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.

No I am not trolling. These are the very laws I was talking about! The ones that allow people to carry guns around like this at all.

These laws are a gigantic part of the problem. Is that clearer?

Kyle fantasized about shooting people on his social media, then went out and did just that. The jury was not allowed to know about the video though.

You don't have to like the source (NY Post) because there is video of him saying this.

https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-...ut-shooting-people-days-before-kenosha-video/

In his own words he got what he wanted. It can certainly be argued.

Try again.

 

[webfusion]

The reason his previous inclinations were not admissible is because he did not shoot arsonists and rioters in Kenosha. He did not shoot anyone in the 'cause' of protecting property. He did not even threaten to do so on the night of August 25th.

So, no, his prior remarks about looters are just that -- remarks made in an offhand manner, at another time and place, unrelated to the specifics of this case.
I've seen mobs of organized looters over the past few months. I sure wouldn't mind if some citizen patrols were on the streets, armed and able to shoot those criminals.

However, citizens are asked to accept these criminal acts occurring right in front of their own eyes. Just let it happen. Nothing to worry about here. Call 911. Let the dispatcher put you on hold. Maybe tell you to call back and speak to the detectives on Monday.

That is the context of Kyle's videotaped comment. He expressed a frustration that millions of Americans are feeling right now.

 

[Wildy]

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

Holding a rifle in any manner that's not slung behind your back even though how Rittenhouse was holding the gun at the time was in no way illegal or a firing position.

Kyle fantasized about shooting people on his social media, then went out and did just that. The jury was not allowed to know about the video though.

Because he wasn't talking about "shooting people" he was talking about shooting shoplifters (or more specifically the alleged shoplifters they were observing). Then he proceeded to not interact with those people at all and apparently reported the alleged crime to the authorities.

Over two weeks later he went on to shoot at three people who were attacking him and one idiot who decided to run up to him holding a gun.

The reason why the Jury wasn't allowed to know about this video was because the events were so disparate that it would be prejudicial. The only way they are similar is if you summarise both events in the incredibly flippant way you did.

Btw, I don't know where you got it was from his social media, the source you provided doesn't give a source to the video and I can't find anything saying that it was.

 

[webfusion]

Klavernacle did make his video -- I tried watching it, couldn't get past his thick accent.
And he thinks that Kyle Rittenhouse is being honored by conservatives (who he calls fascists) as a 'hero' for killing leftists. Uh, no.
Kyle is being praised for keeping himself alive in the face of attacks from very specifically crazed men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNN-jPtFH9g

 

[Ziggurat]

And he thinks that Kyle Rittenhouse is being honored by conservatives (who he calls fascists) as a 'hero' for killing leftists.. Uh, no.

If he wants to tie his political identity to deranged pedophiles, who are we to stop him?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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 ****.

I think you're incredibly misinformed if you aren't aware that open carry laws are routinely used in these states for ego-deficient weirdos to pack around a gun, usually a pistol in their belt. The far right is increasingly making large, openly armed rallies a part of their political expression. You know, because they're fascists.

Limiting these laws to cover hunting activities only would be trivially easy for lawmakers if that were the intention. Plenty of states allow hunting and criminalize open carry in public without issue.

As we descend into increasing political violence, people open carrying rifles in population centers will be more common. Often laws are written with more restrictions for pistols, which are traditionally the weapons carried for personal protection reasons, but as implied threats of mass killing via rifle will become the norm if laws are not updated.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're incredibly misinformed if you aren't aware that open carry laws are routinely used in these states for ego-deficient weirdos to pack around a gun, usually a pistol in their belt. The far right is increasingly making large, openly armed rallies a part of their political expression. You know, because they're fascists.

Limiting these laws to cover hunting activities only would be trivially easy for lawmakers if that were the intention. Plenty of states allow hunting and criminalize open carry in public without issue.

As we descend into increasing political violence, people open carrying rifles in population centers will be more common. Often laws are written with more restrictions for pistols, which are traditionally the weapons carried for personal protection reasons, but as implied threats of mass killing via rifle will become the norm if laws are not updated.

Open carry shootings are a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.

 

[Thermal]

Open carry shootings are a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.

I'm sure that's reassuring to hear at a eulogy. It's nice to know that you are not only dead, but noise range insignificant.

 

[Thermal]

The reason his previous inclinations were not admissible is because he did not shoot arsonists and rioters in Kenosha. He did not shoot anyone in the 'cause' of protecting property. He did not even threaten to do so on the night of August 25th.

So, no, his prior remarks about looters are just that -- remarks made in an offhand manner, at another time and place, unrelated to the specifics of this case.
I've seen mobs of organized looters over the past few months. I sure wouldn't mind if some citizen patrols were on the streets, armed and able to shoot those criminals.
However, citizens are asked to accept these criminal acts occurring right in front of their own eyes. Just let it happen. Nothing to worry about here. Call 911. Let the dispatcher put you on hold. Maybe tell you to call back and speak to the detectives on Monday.

That is the context of Kyle's videotaped comment. He expressed a frustration that millions of Americans are feeling right now.

Kudos to you for coming right out and saying it. Being able to legally wander the streets and kill thieves with impunity and without trial is indeed the dream of many.

 

[webfusion]

We'll see, Thermal, we'll see...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-ron-desantis-looting-riots-mob-b1721320.html

 

[Thermal]

We'll see, Thermal, we'll see...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-ron-desantis-looting-riots-mob-b1721320.html

That article was from 2020. How they doing with their...what did the article call it?...being able to shoot people who are yelling while you are at a restaurant?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm sure that's reassuring to hear at a eulogy. It's nice to know that you are not only dead, but noise range insignificant.

Public policy should not be made on the basis of anecdotes.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Public policy should not be made on the basis of anecdotes.

“Hard cases make bad law.”

 

[webfusion]

That article was from 2020. How they doing with their...what did the article call it?...being able to shoot people who are yelling while you are at a restaurant?

Where did the article say anything about that?

The overall tone of the statements of the Governor was that he wants to 'crack down' on violent and disorderly assemblies. The article referred to enhancing criminal penalties for people engaged in in "violent or disorderly assemblies".
Nothing there about shooting.

It would also make blocking traffic a third-degree felony while offering immunity to drivers who unintentionally kill or injure protesters blocking traffic.

In other words, I can drive along on my way, and not worry about hitting people illegally gathered in the street ahead of me. Sounds reasonable, all things considered.

 

[Graham2001]

From a right-wing student newspaper on a statement issued by the Computer Science deptartment of Stanford University on the Rittenhouse case (Note: I am quoting the email not the commentary.)

On Friday, November 19th, a jury found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. It was not disputed that Rittenhouse brought a firearm to a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killed Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz. As a department, we bemoan the loss of life. We are deeply saddened and disappointed by these events and acknowledge the pain and suffering they have caused many members of the community.


On Wednesday, November 24th, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan were convicted on nine counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt for shooting and killing Ahmaud Arbery. Arbery’s case reflects a longstanding legacy of racial injustice. We offer our heartfelt condolences to Arbery’s family.

We condemn the violence, trauma, and suffering that the Black community has both historically and contemporarily endured. The pervasiveness of anti-Black racism reaffirms our department’s mission to create an equitable, diverse, and inclusive community that centers, affirms, and uplifts everyone and prioritizes an enduring sense of belonging and community for all.

https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-cs-goes-woke/