Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Emily's Cat]

Terrific! We are making progress. Not sure why you are arguing against people who agree with you then. But examine your response. It is *very* rare for two people in some sort of conflict to have a mutual self defense claim. That is why the law, and prosecutors, take such pains to look at who was the initial aggressor, who had the greater claim to the defense. Here, you literally had an active shooter, who had just killed someone, running away from the scene, and a person who stated they were trying to disarm that person so that no one else was killed, and he even put his arms up in the air in a very well know sign of "I am not a threat to you"--and yet he still was nearly killed by the kid with the AR. Seems pretty clear to me who had the greater claim of self defense.

I think your assessment is incorrect. People aren't collectively charged when they're on opposite sides of the situation. They're only collectively charged in RICO cases, I believe.

Realistically, if you evaluate the actions of Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz separately it's not hard to understand that each believed they were acting in self defence. And a reasonable person would conclude that it is understandable and appropriate for each of them to believe that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nor I. Flirting and dressing flattering does not convey the message "I wish to be violently assaulted". Carrying a gun at the ready does convey the message "I wish to violently assault".

In this thread, we learn that Thermal believes every cop and security guard and bodyguard is just aching to murder people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

and then going to a riot that all but advertised "welcome to all the fascists who want to head their heads caved in tonight".

Wasn't it supposed to be a "peaceful" protest full of peaceful people who never wanted to harm anyone at all?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're missing the whole trial I think. Getting your summary from Wiki is not helping you any. Maybe try the trial testimony, starting at the 3:50 mark or so, which shows Kyle pointing his gun at people in the parking area, then Rosenbaum with his hands up before Kyle turned and shot him (I don't see any sign of him grabbing Kyle's gun, BTW, as is alleged by many) You're missing that he was not a security guard (or EMT as he lied about) and was just there as a self-proclaimed vigilante with an illegally possessed firearm. We can argue about his self defense claim for weeks, no doubt, but saying "he was just bringing a gun to help defend a car dealership" is the typical "Kyle is a hero and should be made a Saint" BS characterization.
TrialTestimony

I'm not going to watch four and a half hours trying to find your claim. How about a timeframe for when this evidence shows up?

All the references I can find to Rittenhouse pointing at the crowd prior to events say that it's grainy, unclear, and is subject to a considerable amount of questioning as to whether it actually shows what is claimed.

 

[Thermal]

In this thread, we learn that Thermal believes every cop and security guard and bodyguard is just aching to murder people.

Some surely are, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Kyle, surprisingly, was not a cop or security guard. He was another kid at a riot in defiance of police orders.

And btw, if a cop or security guard holds a weapon on you at the ready, you better damn right well be in fear for your life. He is preparing to fire.

 

[Thermal]

Wasn't it supposed to be a "peaceful" protest full of peaceful people who never wanted to harm anyone at all?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Why do you ask?

Just trying to figure out what core principles are at play here.

Are all the people who defied police orders and were out after curfew bad guys itching for a fight? Or is it just select few depending on which side you support?

Are all of the armed people who were present bad guys itching for a fight? Grosskreutz brought a gun to a riot too, but I don't see any of you proclaiming that they were bad for being armed.

It seems weird to me that in the eyes of so many people, the folks who showed up to defend against violence, destruction, and arson - all of which had already occurred several nights in a row - are the bad guys. Self defense is "in the wrong" in a very selective fashion.

So yeah. I don't know what principles you lot are actually working from, but they seem like rather selective and relative principles.

 

[Thermal]

Just trying to figure out what core principles are at play here.

Are all the people who defied police orders and were out after curfew bad guys itching for a fight? Or is it just select few depending on which side you support?

Are all of the armed people who were present bad guys itching for a fight? Grosskreutz brought a gun to a riot too, but I don't see any of you proclaiming that they were bad for being armed.

It seems weird to me that in the eyes of so many people, the folks who showed up to defend against violence, destruction, and arson - all of which had already occurred several nights in a row - are the bad guys. Self defense is "in the wrong" in a very selective fashion.

So yeah. I don't know what principles you lot are actually working from, but they seem like rather selective and relative principles.

I don't know what's so confusing. The peaceful protests were during the day. After the police mandated curfew, everyone present was a willful 'bad guy', yes, to one degree or another. At the very least every single one said "◊◊◊◊ you and your laws, I'm doing what I want to do".

Enter Grosskreutz. He was A) a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ adult, B) a trained paramedic (not a pretend one like Ritrenhouse running around with a bag of band-aids from Walgeeens) and not insignificantly C) he was a roughneck, not a sissy schoolboy. These were his brothers rioting, and he said FTP and was going to keep them alive if he could. I don't think he should have been carrying, but as an adult with a CCW, it may have been his everyday thing. Not so for Kyle.

{Eta: and not to have to keep.pointing this out over and over, but Grosskreutz didn't shoot anyone, even when faced with an active killer in the street. Only Cowardly Kyle was shooting at anyone who got near him}

So no, there's no comparison.

 

[stanfr]

Just trying to figure out what core principles are at play here.

Hang on, wait for it...

Are all the people who defied police orders and were out after curfew bad guys itching for a fight? Or is it just select few depending on which side you support?

Some of them were. Remember what the purpose of the protests was? If you weren't there to protest, and you weren't a LEO, why exactly were you there with an illegal weapon at age 17? Do you think their motivations were less sincere than the majority of the protestors? I do.

Are all of the armed people who were present bad guys itching for a fight? Grosskreutz brought a gun to a riot too, but I don't see any of you proclaiming that they were bad for being armed.

And he didn't kill two people...huh.

It seems weird to me that in the eyes of so many people,
the folks who showed up to defend against violence, destruction, and arson - all of which had already occurred several nights in a row - are the bad guys. Self defense is "in the wrong" in a very selective fashion.

I've said countless times I might have acquitted him. But you highlighted is just wrong. He wasn't there for that reason, he was there to be a tough guy wannabe hero in his own mind. The folks who were there for the highlighted were police, no?

So yeah. I don't know what principles you lot are actually working from, but they seem like rather selective and relative principles.

Obviously this was a case that polarized an already polarized society. I think the self-defense question is interesting on its own right, but to me the bigger picture is the disease that is the American gun worshipping culture, which personally IMHO is the real story here. Cause in any sane society, this would not have happened, it is a product of the same disease that has arisen in MAGA, which is why Kyle is their poster child. A 'Me, me, me" attitude with total disregard for the health and well-being of others. To quote AmyStrange, YMMV, of course.

 

[stanfr]

I think your assessment is incorrect. People aren't collectively charged when they're on opposite sides of the situation. They're only collectively charged in RICO cases, I believe.

Realistically, if you evaluate the actions of Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz separately it's not hard to understand that each believed they were acting in self defence. And a reasonable person would conclude that it is understandable and appropriate for each of them to believe that.

Wrong. They can't be independently assessed. It's one incident. That's why I told you it is so rare for two separate charges to be filed--an initial assessment has to be made that one person is the aggressor or the person responsible. Thats why I asked about Grosskreutz. If he had succeeded in shooting Kyle, odds are very high he would not have been charged.
ETA: because I don't think I am making my point clear to you, change my hypothetical. Say Grosskreutz somehow manage to get a shot off at the same time his bicep was blown off, and severely damaged Kyles arm. Do you think both he and Kyle would have had assault charges filed against them? Neither of them? Should they have separate charges filed?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wrong. They can't be independently assessed. It's one incident. That's why I told you it is so rare for two separate charges to be filed--an initial assessment has to be made that one person is the aggressor or the person responsible. Thats why I asked about Grosskreutz. If he had succeeded in shooting Kyle, odds are very high he would not have been charged.
ETA: because I don't think I am making my point clear to you, change my hypothetical. Say Grosskreutz somehow manage to get a shot off at the same time his bicep was blown off, and severely damaged Kyles arm. Do you think both he and Kyle would have had assault charges filed against them? Neither of them? Should they have separate charges filed?

Interesting hypothetical. If both were injured, but both lived... I assume that whoever fired first would be charged, but in that particular situation I also think they would end up being viewed as acting in defense.

The reality, if you set aside your ideological bias, is that BOTH Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz were acting in defense based on their understanding of events at the time. From Grosskreutz's perspective, there was an armed person who had been involved in a shooting and could be a danger to someone else. From Rittenhouse's perspective, they had just been attacked by two people and chased by several more, with some of them trying to harm them and take their firearm. A reasonable person would understand that it's entirely possible for both to be genuinely acting in defense.

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider. If Grosskreutz had witnessed the first altercation, where Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab the gun... which of those do you think Grosskreutz would have defended, and why?

 

[AmyStrange]

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider. If Grosskreutz had witnessed the first altercation, where Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab the gun... which of those do you think Grosskreutz would have defended, and why?

TBH, not knowing who owned the gun, I might assume the guy grabbing the gun was trying to get his gun back.

I mean what idiot would grab a gun that way unless he owned it, was really intent on getting it back, and was too excited to think straight, but that's just my opinion.

You know the rest

 

[stanfr]

nteresting hypothetical. If both were injured, but both lived... I assume that whoever fired first would be charged, but in that particular situation I also think they would end up being viewed as acting in defense.

Your assumption is incorrect, and also not applicable because in my (admittedly contrived) hypothetical they fire at the same time. The more likely scenario, assuming any charges were fired--and since he was already facing two other murder charges maybe they would chose not to--is that Kyle still would have been charged and Grosskreutz would not have. How do I know this? Because besides being a former trial attorney I know they came to the conclusion that Kyle should be prosecuted for a reason--namely that he was culpable, and that these were not "mutual combatants" under the law.

The reality, if you set aside your ideological bias, is that BOTH Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz were acting in defense based on their understanding of events at the time. From Grosskreutz's perspective, there was an armed person who had been involved in a shooting and could be a danger to someone else. From Rittenhouse's perspective, they had just been attacked by two people and chased by several more, with some of them trying to harm them and take their firearm. A reasonable person would understand that it's entirely possible for both to be genuinely acting in defense.

I don't completely disagree with that, which is why I've said I would have found this a tough case to win as a prosecutor. Where we disagree is how 'reasonable' we see Kyle's actions and mindset before and during (and even after) the incident. As has been pointed out countless times here, he is the one who set things in motion, and it wasn't cause he was wearing a short skirt.

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider. If Grosskreutz had witnessed the first altercation, where Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab the gun... which of those do you think Grosskreutz would have defended, and why?

That is an interesting hypothetical--and I don't know. Even as an armchair observer who can slow down the videos and watch multiple times, not everything is crystal clear to me. Presumably he would have seen Rosenbaum gunned down in the street, and then Kyle running away, so based on his own trial testimony of wanting to disarm and stop an active shooter, I would speculate that his actions would not have changed--he still would have tried to disarm Kyle. Being actually at the scene probably gives him a better feel of the situation than any of us armchair quarterbacks have, even though we have the benefit of the videos that were taken.

 

[Thermal]

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider. If Grosskreutz had witnessed the first altercation, where Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab the gun... which of those do you think Grosskreutz would have defended, and why?

I'd say he wouldn't have picked a side and defended one- I'd say he would have tried to defuse in any way he could, to either or both. That's how you break up a fight.

Also, depends on when he saw them. When Rosenbaum started chasing the armed Ritenhouse? When Kyle ran away, but then returned to get back in range of Rosenbaum?

 

[arthwollipot]

Kyle Bittenhouse...

Kyle Rittenhouse hospitalized following bite from venomous spider

“The communists couldn’t take me out and i’ll be damned if I let a brown recluse take me out,” said the gunman who opened fire in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Aug. 5, 2020.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Thermal]

"Communists". He went from a clueless cowardly dip ◊◊◊◊ to a clueless cowardly dip ◊◊◊◊ that guzzled the Kool-Aid.

 

[sackett]

Brown recluse bites almost never kill.

Goddammit to hell.

 

[Thermal]

I guess we should be thankful that the little weasel didn't feel the bite and blindly open fire onto a crowded street?

 

[Wildy]

Some of them were. Remember what the purpose of the protests was? If you weren't there to protest, and you weren't a LEO, why exactly were you there with an illegal weapon at age 17? Do you think their motivations were less sincere than the majority of the protestors? I do.

But what if he was there with a legal weapon age 17?

Wrong. They can't be independently assessed. It's one incident. That's why I told you it is so rare for two separate charges to be filed--an initial assessment has to be made that one person is the aggressor or the person responsible. Thats why I asked about Grosskreutz. If he had succeeded in shooting Kyle, odds are very high he would not have been charged.

I do think that it's very likely that he wouldn't have been charged, but if it played out the same way it did but Grosskreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse I think he probably should have been charged.

ETA: because I don't think I am making my point clear to you, change my hypothetical. Say Grosskreutz somehow manage to get a shot off at the same time his bicep was blown off, and severely damaged Kyles arm. Do you think both he and Kyle would have had assault charges filed against them? Neither of them? Should they have separate charges filed?

Again, I'm assuming the same events played out up to the shooting. I would say they both should be charged, the both did shoot at least one person.

I guess we should be thankful that the little weasel didn't feel the bite and blindly open fire onto a crowded street?

Considering that didn't happen in the shootings he was charged for, I don't understand why you'd expect that to happen.

 

[plague311]

Considering that didn't happen in the shootings he was charged for, I don't understand why you'd expect that to happen.

Because Rittenhouse is a panicky little ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that tends not to think things through?