Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[wareyin]

I gotta say, I'm loving that having a DUI (Like Dubya) or having a history of stealing money and domestic violence (like Trump) makes someone inherently a terrible person according to Zig.

 

[AmyStrange]

Amazing how this casual racism is just accepted.

Amazing how ironic it is for a racist to pretend everyone else is a racist except them.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

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

He went there wanting to murder people and he eventually got his wish. Ritenhouse went to the protests over mulitple nights and hung around with a group of far right terrorists whose goal was to start violence, kill or attack peaceful protestors and cause property damage.

The only way he was ever getting off the murder charges was through a gross perversion of justice. Which happened.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It is amazing that people want us to believe that it is irrational to feel threatened by a kid waving a rifle about - when he's white.

 

[stanfr]

I don't think he did anything horrible. What exactly do you think he did that was horrible?

Um, kill couple people for no good reason (despite what you claim about the 'legality' of his actions)

It was unwise of him to get himself into that situation, in the same way it's unwise for a young attractive woman to wander dark alleys at night.

More than unwise, downright stupid and horrible. And your analogy sucks, because the 'young attractive women' are not armed with ARs and looking to provoke a fight.

moral culpability doesn't lie with the person who mistakenly exposes themself to risk of harm from another.

It was not a mistake, his behavior was intentional (and stupid, and horrible)
(snip for brevity)

When someone grabs at your gun, that's an imminent deadly force threat. There's really no reasonably disputing that. And a deadly force threat can be met with a deadly force response. That is proportionate.

That obviously is one of the key legal and factual issues in this case. Looked in a light most favorable to the defendant, one could argue that was a threat that possibly applied to Rosenbaum, but not necessarily for the other two victims. When someone "grabs at your gun"--depending on the circumstances, it could equally be argued that grabbing a gun would be to protect yourself from it being used against you or someone else.
I wouldn't argue that this was a clear-cut case for either side, it was a tricky case from both a factual and legal perspective. The fact that a jury found 'reasonable doubt' was not surprising to me or most people familiar with jury trials. That of course does not mean Rittenhouse was not responsible for their deaths. Many juries have come to many incorrect decisions.

 

[Trausti]

Um, kill couple people for no good reason (despite what you claim about the 'legality' of his actions)

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn - Gulag Archipelago

 

[stanfr]

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn - Gulag Archipelago

A couple years ago, I had a road rager stop in front of me, and come at my car swinging a hammer, cursing at me and inviting me to engage. He was totally on something. I have very little doubt that if I had a gun on me I would have pulled it, and probably one of us (most likely him) would have died. Instead I calmly talked him down and he went on his angry way. I'm glad I was not armed.

 

[Ziggurat]

A couple years ago, I had a road rager stop in front of me, and come at my car swinging a hammer, cursing at me and inviting me to engage. He was totally on something. I have very little doubt that if I had a gun on me I would have pulled it, and probably one of us (most likely him) would have died. Instead I calmly talked him down and he went on his angry way. I'm glad I was not armed.

Would you still be glad to be unarmed if you couldn’t talk him down and he caused you permanent severe injury? And why do you think you couldn’t have talked him down if you had a gun? That seems a bit of a confession about yourself.

 

[stanfr]

Would you still be glad to be unarmed if you couldn’t talk him down and he caused you permanent severe injury?

He did not, so your hypothetical is irrelevant. And the statistics bear out my conclusion, that the gun would escalate things and make a negative outcome more likely, severe injury or death.

And why do you think you couldn’t have talked him down if you had a gun?

I possibly could have, but that is not the point. The point is the presence of the gun would have escalated the situation, made the aggressor more likely to use his weapon first. That is well-documented, but a point to be argued in the appropriate thread.

That seems a bit of a confession about yourself.

Is there something wrong with self-confessions? I was just responding to Truasti's 'cool story bro' with one of my own

 

[Ziggurat]

He did not, so your hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's not at all irrelevant to evaluating you. And you made yourself a topic of discussion.

And the statistics bear out my conclusion, that the gun would escalate things and make a negative outcome more likely, severe injury or death.

No, they do not.

Is there something wrong with self-confessions?

Not at all. They don't serve a very good guide to policy, though.

 

[stanfr]

No, they do not.

Yes they do. Point me to the appropriate thread, or start your own, and I'd be happy to cite numerous studies that demonstrate it.
Do you think that by bringing an AR to a conflict where he knew (or should have known) that he would encounter angry opposition, that it made it more or less likely for someone to get killed? It's a binary choice: More, or Less?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes they do. Point me to the appropriate thread, or start your own, and I'd be happy to cite numerous studies that demonstrate it.

I don't believe you. If you refer to studies that show correlations between guns being in a house and the risk of becoming a victim of gun crime (which isn't even the claim you're making here), they don't control for factors such as gang involvement or drug activity (both of which correlate with gun possession for obvious reasons).

Do you think that by bringing an AR to a conflict where he knew (or should have known) that he would encounter angry opposition, that it made it more or less likely for someone to get killed? It's a binary choice: More, or Less?

Now you're arguing something else. Kyle bringing an AR to the protests is not the equivalent to you carrying a (presumably licensed and concealed) handgun during an ordinary commute. You cannot logically substitute one for the other.

As for what Kyle knew or expected, I make no claims. But he was within his rights to do so. Just like you would be within your rights to carry a licensed gun, and if a road rager attacked you and you shot and killed him in self defense, I would blame the road rager, not you. And that's true EVEN IF you carrying made him more likely to attack you. Which is a claim you have not established.

 

[stanfr]

I don't believe you.

I don't care. Respond to my request or stop it.

Now you're arguing something else. Kyle bringing an AR to the protests is not the equivalent to you carrying a (presumably licensed and concealed) handgun during an ordinary commute. You cannot logically substitute one for the other.

I was responding to Trausti, I am not sure why you think it was addressed to you.

if a road rager attacked you and you shot and killed him in self defense, I would blame the road rager, not you.

What if the road rager came at me with a banana? Am I still justified? Because that is what is at issue here, whether self defense was justified. The jury found reasonable doubt that it was not, but that does not mean they came to the correct decision. If you are so hung up on the road rager analogy that I was not even making, then if the road rager had a gun, and waved it at me, and I tried to grab it, he would be justified in shooting me. That is what you seem to believe.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care. Respond to my request or stop it.

Stop what, exactly? Responding to you? Challenging your unevidenced claims?

I was responding to Trausti, I am not sure why you think it was addressed to you.

I quoted your post #491. In that post, you quoted my post #490. That's why I thought you were addressing me. You did not quote Trausti in that post. Your quote of Trausti was back in post #487.

What if the road rager came at me with a banana? Am I still justified?

If you reasonably believed he posed a deadly force threat, yes. From this very limited description alone, I cannot judge whether your scenario constitutes a deadly force threat.

Because that is what is at issue here, whether self defense was justified. The jury found reasonable doubt that it was not, but that does not mean they came to the correct decision.

Sure, a jury decision can in principle be wrong. In this case, it was not.

If you are so hung up on the road rager analogy that I was not even making, then if the road rager had a gun, and waved it at me, and I tried to grab it, he would be justified in shooting me. That is what you seem to believe.

No. That's a stupid conclusion. That hilighted bit? That's pretty key, and that's what would deprive your hypothetical rager of the right to self defense.

Kyle wasn't waving his gun at anyone before he was attacked. He was not raging at anyone either. He did not deprive himself of the right to self defense.

 

[gabeygoat]

It was unwise of him to get himself into that situation, in the same way it's unwise for a young attractive woman to wander dark alleys at night.

WTF, man. This is just gross.

 

[stanfr]

Stop what, exactly? Responding to you? Challenging your unevidenced claims?

Yeah just stop it, my response was not directed to you but you feel the need to argue even when I made no argument. So start your own thread, or point me to the appropriate one and I'll happily provide you with evidence that does not belong here, so yeah, stop it! You know darn well we can argue that point for 300+ pages and not get anywhere, this thread is a measly 13 pages, so try to stay focused if you can.

I quoted your post #491. In that post, you quoted my post #490. That's why I thought you were addressing me. You did not quote Trausti in that post. Your quote of Trausti was back in post #487.

Yep, and that is what led to this back and forth--you interjected by responding to my comment in your post 488. Post 487 was not even directed to you. Maybe you should have started with my post 485 which was. You were just looking for trouble, not surprising you excuse Rittenhouse who also was...

If you reasonably believed he posed a deadly force threat, yes. From this very limited description alone, I cannot judge whether your scenario constitutes a deadly force threat.

How cute. You imagine a deadly banana...no wonder you think Kyle was justified. There's a job waiting for you in the Trump administration...

Kyle wasn't waving his gun at anyone before he was attacked.

Oh bravo! Now you are getting back on track. Can we stick with this point maybe so neither of us has to waste more pointless typing?
Here is the relevant piece of testimony:
During cross-examination, a prosecutor asked Rittenhouse, "You understand that when you point your AR-15 at someone, it may make them feel like you are going to kill them, correct?" and Rittenhouse said "yes".
NPR

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

"She could have avoided getting raped by not going out that night in a short skirt"

Just saying. Could Rittenhouse have avoided shooting people by not being there? Sure, but it's sophomoric to use that as the basis for your argument. Because the exact same argument results in noting that the two people that were killed in self defense could have avoided being shot by not attacking Rittenhouse in the first place. And all of it could have been avoided by protesters not setting ◊◊◊◊ on fire several nights in a row.

"Could have done it differently" is a shallow approach. The fact is that Rittenhouse ultimately acted in self-defense, legally.

You are by all means free to disagree with Rittenhouse's presence there, you can take umbrage that they felt the need to police someone else's private property from damage. You can certainly believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side of the protest.

But to argue that Rittenhouse is a murderer because they could have let their attackers injure them instead is a really bad argument.

 

[gabeygoat]

"She could have avoided getting raped by not going out that night in a short skirt"

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with y'all?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with y'all?

That's the form of argument being used here, so yeah - what the hell is wrong with youse?

 

[stanfr]

Could Rittenhouse have avoided shooting people by not being there?

But to argue that Rittenhouse is a murderer because they could have let their attackers injure them instead is a really bad argument.

One which no one is making. Both you and Zig want to frame it that way, but it is being disingenuous.
There was testimony that he pointed his gun at protesters before anything even transpired. He could not even legally purchase the weapon he was carrying. He was armed, his victims were not. Whether their actions constituted an 'attack' is in dispute. Your analogy is perverse.