Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Ziggurat]

Post 487 was not even directed to you.

The post in question was.

How cute. You imagine a deadly banana...no wonder you think Kyle was justified.

That is a remarkably stupid interpretation. It's got nothing to do with the banana itself.

Are you aware that an unarmed person can pose a deadly force threat? Not all unarmed people pose such a threat, but some can and do, as evidenced by the fact that unarmed people have killed other people. Does holding a banana make an otherwise dangerous person any less dangerous? Obviously not. The potential threat is not the banana, but the person. The banana is essentially irrelevant.

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

You do realize that Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle BEFORE Kyle pointed the gun at him, right? Rosenbaum initiated the conflict, not Kyle. Your hypothetical was the reverse.

 

[AmyStrange]

The post in question was.

That is a remarkably stupid interpretation. It's got nothing to do with the banana itself.

Are you aware that an unarmed person can pose a deadly force threat? Not all unarmed people pose such a threat, but some can and do, as evidenced by the fact that unarmed people have killed other people. Does holding a banana make an otherwise dangerous person any less dangerous? Obviously not. The potential threat is not the banana, but the person. The banana is essentially irrelevant.

You do realize that Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle BEFORE Kyle pointed the gun at him, right? Rosenbaum initiated the conflict, not Kyle. Your hypothetical was the reverse.

Actually, if you want to be accurate and honest, Kyle initiated the conflict by bringing a gun.

 

[stanfr]

The potential threat is not the banana, but the person. The banana is essentially irrelevant.

No, it is the sum total that is important. If it helps you understand it better, maybe think of the attacker as a 4 foot 10 nun singing songs and carrying a banana. You want to think that the threat can be subjectively determined--it cannot be. The standard is reasonableness. I can't just blow someone away because I subjectively think they are gonna harm me.

You do realize that Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle BEFORE Kyle pointed the gun at him, right? Rosenbaum initiated the conflict, not Kyle. Your hypothetical was the reverse.

He was chasing Kyle. We do not know what prompted the chase--or I should say I don't know. I'd like you to point me to evidence that it was unprovoked and that the chasing constituted an 'attack' since not all chases can be considered aggressive or an assault. He apparently threw a plastic bag at Kyle, but that does not seem very threatening. You also ignore the earlier testimony that Kyle pointed his gun at a man standing on a car, which happened *before* the chase in question. It would be good to know what prompted Rosenbaum to chase Kyle--we may never know. All we do know for sure is that Kyle had the AR, Rosenbaum was unarmed.

 

[stanfr]

Actually, if you want to be accurate and honest, Kyle initiated the conflict by bringing a gun.

Yep, and regardless of all the nuances and whether in an instant his actions constituted self defense under the law, that basic fact seems lost on some. It is very significant in this case, because in Wisconsin there is no legal duty to retreat before using deadly force, so the prosecution had to basically prove--beyond a reasonable doubt-- that he was not in fear or that he was the initial aggressor. Given the conflicting accounts of what happened, that was a tough threshold to meet. But there is zero doubt that because of his foolish actions, two unarmed people were killed.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it is the sum total that is important.

That's stupid. And wrong.

If it helps you understand it better, maybe think of the attacker as a 4 foot 10 nun singing songs and carrying a banana.

That matters. A lot. I would not be very frightened of such a person even if she was carrying a hammer. Your actual road rager was not a 4'10" singing nun, was he? He was considerably larger, and considerably more physically threatening, wasn't he?

You want to think that the threat can be subjectively determined--it cannot be. The standard is reasonableness. I can't just blow someone away because I subjectively think they are gonna harm me.

You are correct that an unreasonable fear doesn't justify force, but I never suggested otherwise. You are objecting to a position I never took. And the reasonableness standard applied to your hypothetical very much depends on factors like whether it's a 4'10" nun or the Mountain high on meth, factors which you did not include. Factors which aren't erased by the presence of a banana.

Plus you are wrong: reasonableness is a subjective standard. An objective standard would be whether or not the threat was real, regardless of how it appears. We don't use that standard. Do you understand why?

It would be good to know what prompted Rosenbaum to chase Kyle--we may never know. All we do know for sure is that Kyle had the AR, Rosenbaum was unarmed.

Which made it suicidal of Rosenbaum to chase him. But pedophiles don't tend to have good impulse control, especially around minors. Do you really think Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle because Rosenbaum had a justifiable claim to self defense?

 

[Ziggurat]

But there is zero doubt that because of his foolish actions, two unarmed people were killed.

Why would I care that they died unarmed? Being unarmed isn't a morally purer state than being armed. Of more interest to me is whether they are innocent or guilty.

They were guilty. And good riddance to pedophiles, the world is a better place without Rosenbaum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, if you want to be accurate and honest, Kyle initiated the conflict by bringing a gun.

That's not how it works, certainly not in places where you are allowed to carry legally.

 

[AmyStrange]

That's not how it works, certainly not in places where you are allowed to carry legally.

I'm looking at the facts, not some, "that's not how it works," BS from someone who doesn't care that two people died.

Good luck with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm looking at the facts, not some, "that's not how it works,"

The fact is that merely having a gun on you doesn't constitute initiating a conflict.

BS from someone who doesn't care that two people died.

You aren't dealing with facts at all. You're dealing with feelings. You think your feelings are more important than the facts.

And I'm not going to apologize for not being sad that a pedophile nominated himself for a Darwin award.

 

[AmyStrange]

You aren't dealing with facts at all. You're dealing with feelings. You think your feelings are more important than the facts.

And you are? bwahahahahaha.

You're the one dealing with feelings of love for some half-wit and those aren't facts.

I can tell by your last sentence of hate for someone who can't defend themselves:

"And I'm not going to apologize for not being sad that a pedophile nominated himself for a Darwin award."

That says everything I need to know about you.

The fact is Rittenhouse had a gun, and people chased him for that reason.

Without the gun, the results would've been different.

Deal with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you are? bwahahahahaha.

You're the one dealing with feelings of love for some half-wit and those aren't facts.

Said the defender of pedophiles.

 

[AmyStrange]

Said the defender of pedophiles.

Nope. Wrong again.

I personally believe Rittenhouse did fear for his life, and Rosenbaum was also a half-wit for chasing and grabbing the gun.

If I'd been on the jury, I would've voted for acquittal too, but that's not what started it all, and that's what I'm responding to.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. Wrong again.

I personally believe Rittenhouse did fear for his life

Do you think that fear was reasonable? If so, then he was correct to pull the trigger.

If I'd been on the jury, I would've voted for acquittal too, but that's not what started it all, and that's what I'm responding to.

Then what are you responding to? The fact that he came to the protest at all? That he came armed?

You can evaluate them as wrong in retrospect. You can even consider them wrong at the time. But he was within his rights to make those choices.

 

[AmyStrange]

Said the defender of pedophiles.

And BTW, I saw his time on the stand and was utterly disgusted by his fake crying, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[AmyStrange]

Do you think that fear was reasonable? If so, then he was correct to pull the trigger.

Then what are you responding to? The fact that he came to the protest at all? That he came armed?

You can evaluate them as wrong in retrospect. You can even consider them wrong at the time. But he was within his rights to make those choices.

Sigh, once again, I'm not responding to whether he was guilty or not.

I'm responding to the fact that having the gun was what started it.

If he hadn't brought and carried the gun with him in plain sight, he wouldn't have been chased, and everything else wouldn't have happened.

 

[Ziggurat]

And BTW, I saw his time on the stand and was utterly disgusted by his fake crying, but that's just my opinion.

What if it wasn't fake?

Seriously, would your opinion of him change if that wasn't an act?

 

[AmyStrange]

What if it wasn't fake?

Seriously, would your opinion of him change if that wasn't an act?

Like I said, that was just my opinion.

I would've still voted for acquittal, because I really do believe at the time he was in fear for his life.

His fake crying at a later date wouldn't have changed that fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sigh, once again, I'm not responding to whether he was guilty or not.

I'm responding to the fact that having the gun was what started it.

If he hadn't brought and carried the gun with him in plain sight, he wouldn't have been chased, and everything else wouldn't have happened.

If you give a mouse a cookie....

He was within his rights to carry the gun. He was within his rights to defend himself. I would advise others not to bring guns to protests, just like I would advise women not to get drunk around strangers, because the risk of something bad happening is significant. But I won't blame him or a drunk woman who gets assaulted for the actions of others.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like I said, that was just my opinion.

I would've still voted for acquittal, because I really do believe at the time he was in fear for his life.

His fake crying at a later date wouldn't have changed that fact.

That wasn't my question.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Like I said, that was just my opinion.

I would've still voted for acquittal, because I really do believe at the time he was in fear for his life.

His fake crying at a later date wouldn't have changed that fact.

and his intentionally putting himself in that situation should also matter, kind of like how in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery they might have feared for their life when he charged them, but the chasing him in a truck kind of made it hard to claim self defense.