Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Thermal]

Yes, they did. I know you don't want to believe that, because your entire narrative crumbles if you concede that, but your denial of it won't make it not true.

Your bald assertion in the face of the documented evidence falls about as flat as it could.

He was found not guilty by a community that supported killing street protesters. That's a sad state of affairs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your bald assertion in the face of the documented evidence falls about as flat as it could.

You're accusing me of bald assertions? You have nothing but bald assertions. The "documented evidence" was shown at trial, and didn't prove what you claim. Which is why he was acquitted.

He was found not guilty by a community that supported killing street protesters. That's a sad state of affairs.

Of course. Blame the jury. I knew we'd get there eventually. When you can't win an argument on merit, just insult those who disagree with you.

 

[Thermal]

You're accusing me of bald assertions? You have nothing but bald assertions.

I just cited the actions that were testified to the jury. We saw the freaking video ourselves, and this forum literally reviewed the exact laws which were relied upon at trial (which we also saw). Hardly bald assertions.

The "documented evidence" was shown at trial, and didn't prove what you claim. Which is why he was acquitted.

It proved it conclusively to many of us.

Of course. Blame the jury. I knew we'd get there eventually. When you can't win an argument on merit, just insult those who disagree with you.

No, many of us were frankly shocked at the jury's decision.

For instance, Freeman. Kyle shot blindly at the man's back twice while he ran away (and missed). I can't come up with any interpretation of self defense that allows you to shoot at an unarmed retreating assailant in the back. Wisconsin law doesn't allow you to shoot at someone who is running away from you.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Rittenhouse went there willing to kill people.
No one asked him to, except right-wing commentators

 

[Ziggurat]

I just cited the actions that were testified to the jury.

You mean post #400? Yeah, that doesn't prove anything about the people who attacked him.

We saw the freaking video ourselves

Indeed we did.

It proved it conclusively to many of us.

Your judgment means nothing to me.

For instance, Freeman. Kyle shot blindly at the man's back twice while he ran away (and missed). I can't come up with any interpretation of self defense that allows you to shoot at an unarmed retreating assailant in the back. Wisconsin law doesn't allow you to shoot at someone who is running away from you.

Let's see how the prosecution characterizes this interaction in their indictment:

"As the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light-colored pants jumps at and over the defendant. Based on the sounds of gunshots on the video and the positioning of the defendant’s gun, it appears that he fires two shots in quick succession at this person. It appears that that person was not hit as he then runs away from the defendant."​

They don't describe Kyle shooting at him AS he runs away, but before he runs away. And note: they do not charge him for this interaction, and not because he didn't hit Freeman. This is the same indictment where they also charge Kyle for endangering McGinnis, who not only wasn't hit but wasn't even shot at.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rittenhouse went there willing to kill people.

You should be willing to kill people who physically attack you.

No one asked him to, except right-wing commentators

Not legally relevant.

 

[Thermal]

Rittenhouse went there willing to kill people.

I don't think so. I think he went there swooning in a childish hero fantasy, thinking no one would mess with him if he was carrying a rifle.

 

[gabeygoat]

You should be willing to kill people who physically attack you.

Nope. I've been beaten up a few times. I defended myself as needed. I killed no one. I'm not a gop coward though.

 

[Thermal]

You mean post #400? Yeah, that doesn't prove anything about the people who attacked him.

I don't care about the people, as you obviously do by dragging up their pasts for character assassination. I care about their actions that night.

Indeed we did.

Your judgment means nothing to me.

Ya I get that.

And note: they do not charge him for this interaction, and not because he didn't hit Freeman.

Which is further lunacy. You don't get charged if you are a lousy shot? Attempted murder is a charge, so I don't think your reasoning about why they didn't charge him is accurate.

This is the same indictment where they also charge Kyle for endangering McGinnis, who not only wasn't hit but wasn't even shot at.

McGinnis had a bullet whiz by him. Kyle didn't deliberately shoot at him, agreed, but it is ridiculous to say 'cowardly Kyle was shooting blindly into the crowd and narrowly missed hitting another bystander, so hey, no harm, no foul? He's such a sweet boy".

I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hate cowards.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. I've been beaten up a few times. I defended myself as needed. I killed no one. I'm not a gop coward though.

Perhaps you are confused about what I said. I didn't say you always should kill someone who physically attacks you. But you should be willing to, because sometimes that is required in order to protect yourself. The fact that you haven't been in such a situation yet is a good thing, but don't confuse your past experience with your possible future experiences, or anyone else's experience.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps you are confused about what I said. I didn't say you always should kill someone who physically attacks you. But you should be willing to, because sometimes that is required in order to protect yourself. The fact that you haven't been in such a situation yet is a good thing, but don't confuse your past experience with your possible future experiences, or anyone else's experience.

You should be willing to kill in self defense if there is no other option. Killing is the last resort, not first option. This sniveling little Rittenhouse bitch took it as his first option. He could have skipped away and gone back to his bull ◊◊◊◊ 'protection' of the car dealership if he didn't want a confrontation.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care about the people, as you obviously do by dragging up their pasts for character assassination. I care about their actions that night.

Again, do you think Rittenhouse just got lucky in who he shot? You never actually answered me.

Which is further lunacy. You don't get charged if you are a lousy shot?

You don't get it. I'm not arguing that you don't get charged if you are a lousy shot. Quite the reverse. It's an example of how off-base your interpretation of events is. Their choice to not charge him had NOTHING to do with him missing. Again, they charged him for McGinnis, and he didn't even aim at McGinnis.

Attempted murder is a charge, so I don't think your reasoning about why they didn't charge him is accurate.

You really don't get it, do you? Of course attempted murder is a charge. I AGREE. If the prosecutors thought that those shots were attempted murder, they would have charged. But they DIDN'T think it was attempted murder. And the reason they didn't think it wasn't attempted murder isn't because he missed. Again, they were willing to charge him over McGinnis.

McGinnis had a bullet whiz by him.

So did Freeman.

Kyle didn't deliberately shoot at him, agreed, but it is ridiculous to say 'cowardly Kyle was shooting blindly into the crowd and narrowly missed hitting another bystander, so hey, no harm, no foul? He's such a sweet boy".

Again, you don't get it. Bringing up McGinnis has nothing to do with excusing a miss. The point is that prosecutors WERE NOT excusing misses. Something you agree with the prosecutors on.

And yet, they didn't charge over Freeman. Why? Because your understanding of what happened with Freeman is completely wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

You should be willing to kill in self defense if there is no other option. Killing is the last resort, not first option. This sniveling little Rittenhouse bitch took it as his first option. He could have skipped away and gone back to his bull ◊◊◊◊ 'protection' of the car dealership if he didn't want a confrontation.

At the moment he fired, he didn't have any better options. Whether different earlier choices might have led to better outcomes isn't legally relevant.

 

[plague311]

I love the "you should be willing to kill if you're confronted" stupidity.

I just don't put myself in those situations because I'm not an attention seeking little bitch that has to wander, uninvited, to a location that has nothing to do with me, with a gun, in hopes I get to shoot someone.

GOP cowards, however, LOVE getting themselves in situations like this. They LOVE putting themselves in situations where they HAVE to shoot and kill people. Look at Zigg here. He takes every chance to show how proud and supportive of this outcome he is. Sure, there are the weasel word covers like "earlier choices might have blah blah blah" but it's just rationalizing his love that people he doesn't like were murdered.

The GOP loves defending people who kill for no reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

I love the "you should be willing to kill if you're confronted" stupidity.

I love how you put your straw man in quotes, as if anyone but you said that.

GOP cowards, however, LOVE getting themselves in situations like this. They LOVE putting themselves in situations where they HAVE to shoot. Look at Zigg here. He takes every chance to show how proud and supportive of this outcome he is.

The outcome where a person is correctly acquitted of murder charges for legally defending themself? Indeed, I am very supportive of that outcome. That is precisely the outcome I want when someone is improperly charged.

The GOP loves defending people who kill for no reason.

The Democrats love defending people who kill their political opponents.

Gosh, this is a fun game.

 

[jeremyp]

You complain that I don't source things, but you also refuse to look at my source. That's... ironic.

It's his criminal history, including domestic violence, burglary, stalking, drunk driving, and illegal firearm possession.

So at least one of the people he shot wasn't very nice. I'm assuming the others had similar criminal records.

Is it considered OK to kill people in the USA if they have bad criminal records?

Do you understand that, in any sane jurisdiction Ritterhouse would absolutely have been convicted of murder? He went out looking for a fight. He could have avoided killing people by not going out that night to see the riot.

 

[Ziggurat]

So at least one of the people he shot wasn't very nice. I'm assuming the others had similar criminal records.

Is it considered OK to kill people in the USA if they have bad criminal records?

You misunderstand me. It's not the fact that they're bad people which excuses shooting them. No, the justification for shooting them was entirely due to them attacking Kyle.

But it's not a coincidence that the people who chose to attack Kyle were all bad people. That's part of why they attacked him. Every one of them could have avoided being shot by simply not attacking him. Something that they were not legally entitled to do.

Do you understand that, in any sane jurisdiction Ritterhouse would absolutely have been convicted of murder? He went out looking for a fight. He could have avoided killing people by not going out that night to see the riot.

I don't think you actually understand how the law of self defense works.

Your supposition of his motive is irrelevant. And he had every legal right to be there, just as much as any protester there did. He even had the legal right to carry a weapon. He didn't start the fight. So in terms of the jury verdict, it doesn't matter that not being there could have prevented the shooting, just as it doesn't matter to a legal verdict if a rape victim could have avoided the rape by not walking alone down a dark alley, or wearing a short skirt. While that may all be true, that plays no role in a legal evaluation of the case.

You're basically arguing that a "sane" jurisdiction wouldn't actually follow the law.

 

[plague311]

I love how you put your straw man in quotes, as if anyone but you said that.

It's exactly what you're saying, but deny it all you want. Everyone else can read the ◊◊◊◊ you write.

The outcome where a person is correctly acquitted of murder charges for legally defending themself? Indeed, I am very supportive of that outcome. That is precisely the outcome I want when someone is improperly charged.

Whatever you say, kiddo.

The Democrats love defending people who kill their political opponents.

Where is that happening? Speaking of dumb ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ strawmen.

Gosh, this is a fun game.

Yeah, that's the problem with y'all on the right. Killing people is a game. A fun game. Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud. You guys are getting terrible at that, but now that Trump's back in office you guys feel emboldened again.

 

[Thermal]

Again, do you think Rittenhouse just got lucky in who he shot? You never actually answered me.

Going out on a limb, here... because you never 'actually' asked me? Are you confused who you are talking to, and about what? It would explain a good deal.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think he did background checks?

Seems like a jury thought the foreground checks were more than adequate.