Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[wareyin]

Why not? Black did it, not Kyle. Kyle was never even charged with anything related to the acquisition of the gun. Why? Because what Kyle did wasn't a crime.

Nice slight of hand. Yes, he was criminally charged, but he did not plead guilty to the criminal charges. Those were dropped, because the prosecutor knew he couldn't get a conviction. Black pled guilty to a civil infraction, not a criminal charge.

Everyone there chose to "enter and engage in a volatile situation". Why aren't you blaming anyone else just for showing up? Because that's stupid and absurd.

The question was never about whether or not his choices were his own, or whether they contributed to the outcome. The question is whether or not any criminal liability attaches to those choices. And it doesn't.

You are attempting to reframe the entire discussion.

The question we were debating was never about whether or not he was convicted; it was about whether Kyle intended to get into a fight. You are sidestepping the evidence because it proves your claim false.

You ask, "Why not?" blame only Black. The failure of that logic is Agency. Kyle was the one who funded and initiated the illegal purchase, making the entire transaction necessary. When a person pays an agent to commit an illegal act, the initiator is not absolved.

You are also misrepresenting the plea deal. Black was prosecuted on felony charges. He eventually pleaded to a misdemeanor crime of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor that was then reduced to a civil fine. That fine was the negotiated penalty for the crime of circumventing the law, not a declaration that the underlying illegal transaction was legitimate.

You misstate the possession charge dismissal. The judge granted that dismissal based on a technical ambiguity in the long-gun statute, a legal point that does not retroactively validate the straw purchase that supplied the weapon.

Regarding your question about why I focus on Kyle more than others who showed up: The evidence of Kyle's intent to fight is overwhelming, as he arranged and paid for the illegal acquisition of a prohibited weapon, carried that weapon to the scene while breaking curfew, and actively sought out a volatile area. All of these choices demonstrate an intent to engage.

The reason I focus on Kyle more than others is simple: Kyle Rittenhouse is the only person who shot three people, killing two of them. The responsibility for those severe outcomes, starting with the illegal acquisition and followed by a sequence of intentional choices, rests with Kyle, regardless of the ultimate verdict on criminal liability.

 

[wareyin]

No, I do not agree. That suggests that the gun itself somehow made bad things inevitable. And it didn't. Rosenbaum made a choice to chase Kyle. He made a choice to grab for the gun. He didn't have to. And he wasn't legally justified in doing so. Had he not made that choice, nothing would have happened.

That statement is a false premise. The problem was not the gun itself, a point proven by your own observation: other people were there with firearms and did not shoot anyone.

The issue was not "the gun"; the issue was "Kyle with the gun."

 

[Ziggurat]

The question we were debating was never about whether or not he was convicted; it was about whether Kyle intended to get into a fight.

And that keeps boiling down to "he brought a gun". Which doesn't actually constitute evidence for the claim. Whether or not he got the gun illegally actually tells us nothing about why he brought it. The theory seems to be, if he did one thing wrong, that means he did everything wrong. Which is nonsensical.

You are also misrepresenting the plea deal. Black was prosecuted on felony charges. He eventually pleaded to a misdemeanor crime of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor that was then reduced to a civil fine.

No. What he pled to wasn't a crime at all. I'm not misrepresenting that. The sentence for some misdemeanors is just a fine, but that fine isn't a civil fine. You cannot reduce a criminal conviction to a civil fine. It's only a civil fine if it's a civil infraction, not a crime. For example, speeding is not generally a crime, only a civil infraction. Black pled to a civil infraction, he DID NOT plead to a misdemeanor crime.

The reason I focus on Kyle more than others is simple: Kyle Rittenhouse is the only person who shot three people, killing two of them. The responsibility for those severe outcomes, starting with the illegal acquisition and followed by a sequence of intentional choices, rests with Kyle, regardless of the ultimate verdict on criminal liability.

Are you familiar with the concept of felony murder? That's where if someone dies in the process of you committing a felony, you can sometimes be held liable for their death, even if you didn't kill them, or even if you did kill them but wouldn't have been liable for their murder if you hadn't been committing a felony. We can attach guilt for the death to a person because of a related crime that person was committing.

You seem to be trying to apply that logic here, but it doesn't work. For one thing, there's no misdemeanor murder. For another, the death must occur during the commission of a felony, not sometime after. Whatever you think about the legality of the acquisition of the gun, it's not relevant, because it wasn't happening at the same time. Even if Kyle had felony liability for getting the gun (he didn't), it would make zero difference to this case.

So who is actually responsible for those deaths? The people who attacked Kyle. That's who. No one made them attack Kyle. There was no need to do that. Had they not attacked Kyle, you and I would never have even heard that he existed.

 

[Ziggurat]

The issue was not "the gun"; the issue was "Kyle with the gun."

There was no issue with Kyle with the gun either until someone attacked him. The issue was people attacking him.

 

[plague311]

No, I do not agree. That suggests that the gun itself somehow made bad things inevitable. And it didn't. Rosenbaum made a choice to chase Kyle.

Why did Rosenbaum decide to chase Kyle? I'll give you a hint, the answer is contained in the first part of your sentence. Take your time. I know you have to be deliberately obtuse and give disingenuous answers so I know it'll take you a second to think one up.

He made a choice to grab for the gun. He didn't have to. And he wasn't legally justified in doing so. Had he not made that choice, nothing would have happened.

This is why your argument cannot be taken seriously. You excuse Kyle at every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ step of the way. Everything he did that's illegal you dismiss out of hand, yet when it comes to those he shot then you're more than happy to get technical. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ joke.

Again, post hoc rationalization.

 

[wareyin]

And that keeps boiling down to "he brought a gun". Which doesn't actually constitute evidence for the claim. Whether or not he got the gun illegally actually tells us nothing about why he brought it. The theory seems to be, if he did one thing wrong, that means he did everything wrong. Which is nonsensical.

No. What he pled to wasn't a crime at all. I'm not misrepresenting that. The sentence for some misdemeanors is just a fine, but that fine isn't a civil fine. You cannot reduce a criminal conviction to a civil fine. It's only a civil fine if it's a civil infraction, not a crime. For example, speeding is not generally a crime, only a civil infraction. Black pled to a civil infraction, he DID NOT plead to a misdemeanor crime.

Are you familiar with the concept of felony murder? That's where if someone dies in the process of you committing a felony, you can sometimes be held liable for their death, even if you didn't kill them, or even if you did kill them but wouldn't have been liable for their murder if you hadn't been committing a felony. We can attach guilt for the death to a person because of a related crime that person was committing.

You seem to be trying to apply that logic here, but it doesn't work. For one thing, there's no misdemeanor murder. For another, the death must occur during the commission of a felony, not sometime after. Whatever you think about the legality of the acquisition of the gun, it's not relevant, because it wasn't happening at the same time. Even if Kyle had felony liability for getting the gun (he didn't), it would make zero difference to this case.

So who is actually responsible for those deaths? The people who attacked Kyle. That's who. No one made them attack Kyle. There was no need to do that. Had they not attacked Kyle, you and I would never have even heard that he existed.

Your argument is a distraction built on legal semantics to evade personal accountability.

You claim the illegal acquisition "tells us nothing" about why Kyle brought the gun, which is rhetorically evasive. The purpose of illegally acquiring that rifle is the same reason he chose to violate curfew and go to a conflict zone: to brandish it and feel invincible. This demonstrates intentional provocation, not a random mistake.

The theory is not that "if he did one thing wrong, he did everything wrong." The theory is that one illegal, premeditated action (the straw purchase) was the necessary foundation for a sequence of intentional, dangerous choices (violating curfew, seeking confrontation) driven by that same faulty motive.

You are fixated on Black’s final civil fine, but the acquisition was illegal regardless of that plea. The law explicitly prohibited Kyle from buying the gun, and the law prohibits anyone from buying a gun for a person who is legally prohibited. Kyle was aware of both prohibitions and paid Black to circumvent the statute. That is the foundational illegality.

I am not applying your made up legal doctrine of "misdemeanor murder"; I am arguing causality and responsibility. The choices made by those who attacked him were reactions to the imminent threat Kyle intentionally brought and created.

Kyle Rittenhouse is the primary actor who manufactured the deadly scenario. He is the only one who initiated the illegal acquisition, carried that rifle, and is the only person who shot three people, killing two. Had Kyle not chosen to illegally obtain a firearm, seek out a confrontation, and then chosen to kill people, you are correct that we would not have heard of him.

 

[sackett]

There was no issue with Kyle with the gun either until someone attacked him. The issue was people attacking him.

Quite right. Back during Kylie's initial 15 minutes of heroism, I posted the
correct way to deal with Pudgey Boys like him:

• Stalk him -- carefully! -- until you can get behind him.
• Approach him quickly.
• Give him a tap behind the ear with, say, an empty bottle, only hard
enough to buckle his knees and land him on his face.
• Take away his wee gun and
• Run away with it, dropping out the mag and clearing the chamber;
these actions are feasible while running.
• When safely away from the area, slow to a brisk walk and field strip
the gun, tossing the removable components down street drains. If you
have good enough light and are familiar with the technique, remove the
bolt, cam pin, and striker and scatter them individually.
• Insert the barrel into a grating, or use the bolts of a streetlight base
as a fixture, and bend the barrel into the tightest crook you can manage.
Wrenching the upper reciever sidewise at the forward hinge should
finish the deactivating task permanently, but if you're near deep water,
consigning the wreckage there is no more than tidying up..

What about Mrs. Rittenhouse's little boy? Aw heck, a mild concussion
might do him good. Won't make him a worse person anyway.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why would you think that? Do you think Kyle picked a fight? He didn't.

You can't argue without straw. You don't know how to.

Yes, he picked a fight. He brought guns for the purpose of picking a fight. He wanted to kill people, and that's what he did.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claim the illegal acquisition "tells us nothing" about why Kyle brought the gun, which is rhetorically evasive. The purpose of illegally acquiring that rifle is the same reason he chose to violate curfew and go to a conflict zone: to brandish it and feel invincible.

That's a lot of unsupported supposition. You do know that when Black got the rifle, there was no indication that there would ever be any protests he would take it to, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why did Rosenbaum decide to chase Kyle? I'll give you a hint, the answer is contained in the first part of your sentence.

The gun was not sufficient justification for Rosenbaum to chase and attack Kyle. Rosenbaum is responsible for his own death.

 

[Ziggurat]

Quite right. Back during Kylie's initial 15 minutes of heroism, I posted the
correct way to deal with Pudgey Boys like him:

• Stalk him -- carefully! -- until you can get behind him.
• Approach him quickly.
• Give him a tap behind the ear with, say, an empty bottle, only hard
enough to buckle his knees and land him on his face.
• Take away his wee gun and

You're advocating assault and battery. And you think Kyle was acting irresponsibly?

This is a moral inversion.

 

[plague311]

The gun was not sufficient justification for Rosenbaum to chase and attack Kyle. Rosenbaum is responsible for his own death.

Yes or no. If Kyle chose to not bring a gun would anyone have even paid any attention to him at all?

You're advocating assault and battery. And you think Kyle was acting irresponsibly?

This is a moral inversion.

Don't clutch those moral pearls too tightly, they might break.

 

[wareyin]

That's a lot of unsupported supposition. You do know that when Black got the rifle, there was no indication that there would ever be any protests he would take it to, right?

You do understand that two events being caused by the same underlying motive is different from claiming one caused the other, correct?

The illegal acquisition and the subsequent pattern of seeking and re-engaging conflict were two separate actions driven by the same motive: Kyle intentionally breaking the law to gain a capability that made him feel like a big man.

Kyle is responsible for illegally obtaining the gun, for seeking out a place he believed he could use that gun, and for violating curfew to go to that place. He is responsible for re-engaging conflict after having been chased away once. He is responsible for pulling that trigger, killing two people and wounding a third.

And you would feel the same way if he wasn't a conservative and thus incapable of being held to account for his own actions.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you would feel the same way if he wasn't a conservative and thus incapable of being held to account for his own actions.

Nope. I'm quite consistent about being in favor of everyone's right to self defense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes or no. If Kyle chose to not bring a gun would anyone have even paid any attention to him at all?

Probably not. So what? What do you think that proves?

If Kyle's mom hadn't gotten pregnant with him, then Rosenbaum would probably still be alive. There's all sorts of "but for" causes one can find, but that doesn't suffice for imbuing them with responsibility for the outcome.

 

[wareyin]

Nope. I'm quite consistent about being in favor of everyone's right to self defense.

We have already established that you do not believe that.

In this thread, you have claimed that Kyle’s actions, which included irresponsibly threatening others, did not give those individuals a right to self defense. Furthermore, you consistently ignore the fact that by re-engaging conflict after having been chased away, Kyle was not acting in self defense.

 

[Ziggurat]

We have already established that you do not believe that.

You have done nothing of the sort.

In this thread, you have claimed that Kyle’s actions, which included irresponsibly threatening others, did not give those individuals a right to self defense.

Nobody who attacked Kyle was being threatened by him when they attacked. Nor did they attack him in defense of anyone else. You're appealing to hypothetical defense that you think could have happened, but none of that is what actually happened.

 

[AmyStrange]

Taking a gun away from someone who points it at you isn't self defense?

What a maroon.

 

[sackett]

You're advocating assault and battery. And you think Kyle was acting irresponsibly?

This is a moral inversion.

Mhm. Aren't I just an awful person?

First time I posted my solution to Kid Kyle and His Miraculous Gun, I was taken to task, at length, by a moral guardian here on this forum. Seems I was already an awful person even back then.

Look, Zig. When the laws are down and reckless people are on the prod, not everyone
wants to stay away, much less run. Many of us (including you, I'll bet) will think of acting
in a dire situation, not hot-headely but with purpose. In this case, the central factor was that
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ AR15. The best resolution was to get it out of the paws of that teenage hoon.
My imaginary tactics (my fantasy, and that's all it is) would, I think, work better than running
at him and trying to snatch it away. Obviously, we'll never know.

Until the next time.

 

[AmyStrange]

Mhm. Aren't I just an awful person?

First time I posted my solution to Kid Kyle and His Miraculous Gun, I was taken to task, at length, by a moral guardian here on this forum. Seems I was already an awful person even back then.

Look, Zig. When the laws are down and reckless people are on the prod, not everyone
wants to stay away, much less run. Many of us (including you, I'll bet) will think of acting
in a dire situation, not hot-headely but with purpose. In this case, the central factor was that
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ AR15. The best resolution was to get it out of the paws of that teenage hoon.
My imaginary tactics (my fantasy, and that's all it is) would, I think, work better than running
at him and trying to snatch it away. Obviously, we'll never know.

Until the next time.

Well, at least you're not a maroon.