• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

Look there was nothing wrong with illegally buying a firearm because those laws are only supposed to apply to democrats and their families, as we saw with the way they went after Bidens son.
 
I honestly don't think he was looking for a fight. I think he was looking to swagger around and be a hero and nobody would mess with him if he was carrying a rifle around in ready position. As he discovered, that didn't scare people off, even when he started killing them in his pants-pissing panic firing.

He illegally went to an out-of-state protest, knowing it defied police orders. Then he tried to play cop, and went 'on patrol' (not guarding some husk of a car dealership as he alternatively claimed). But he wasn't a cop.
Do you think that makes him guilty of murder? Or just an idiot?
 
Do you think that makes him guilty of murder? Or just an idiot?
They are not exclusive.

I think they were murder in the sense that he played a large part in creating the confrontation, then did not take the non-lethal 'outs' at his disposal. As a matter of conflict that you engaged in, you should be willing to take a kick or skateboard pop from people trying to stop you from killing anyone else. Despite the contact, he walked away without a scratch. He absolutely did not need to fire at any time during that night. It was panicky elective shooting.
 
"Murderer" and "idiot" are not exclusive, but "murderer" and "just an idiot" are. Can you figure out why? I gave you a little hint.
Would it tax you greatly to put up a pretense of good faith discussion?
OK, how about in the sense that people normally mean the word?
Guess it would.
 
Would it tax you greatly to put up a pretense of good faith discussion?
Your definition of "good faith" is one where I accept all your premises. Sorry, not going to happen.
Guess it would.
I disagree. Nothing anyone has said in this thread, no evidence presented anywhere else, suggests to me that Kyle didn't act in legitimate self defense when he fired. Whatever criticisms you want to level at him for decisions he made prior to that (some of which I might even agree with you on), none of it deprived him of the right to self defense. Therefore, not murder.
 
I disagree. Nothing anyone has said in this thread, no evidence presented anywhere else, suggests to me that Kyle didn't act in legitimate self defense when he fired. Whatever criticisms you want to level at him for decisions he made prior to that (some of which I might even agree with you on), none of it deprived him of the right to self defense. Therefore, not murder.

Found the problem.
 
Your definition of "good faith" is one where I accept all your premises. Sorry, not going to happen.

I disagree. Nothing anyone has said in this thread, no evidence presented anywhere else, suggests to me that Kyle didn't act in legitimate self defense when he fired. Whatever criticisms you want to level at him for decisions he made prior to that (some of which I might even agree with you on), none of it deprived him of the right to self defense. Therefore, not murder.
What a lot of us see is a disproportionate use of self defense, taken when there were non-deadly options. To those of us who think a duty to retreat is morally called for before killing, and who consider the 'imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm' to not be evidenced, the use of deadly force was disproportionate.
 
What a lot of us see is a disproportionate use of self defense, taken when there were non-deadly options.
When someone chases you and grabs for your gun, it is reasonable to think that they mean you deadly harm. You are entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself. You are not under any obligation to assume that they will merely beat you, and that you should just take it.
To those of us who think a duty to retreat is morally called for before killing
He tried to retreat.
, and who consider the 'imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm' to not be evidenced,
You are wrong about that. It very much was.
the use of deadly force was disproportionate.
And that error means you are wrong about this as well.
 
By who? Dominic Black? I'm not going to blame Kyle for what Black did. Which wasn't a crime but only a civil infraction.

What did Kyle do that was illegal? Violate curfew? So did basically everyone there.
Your attempt to assign all responsibility to Dominick Black is a failure of logic and accountability. You previously dropped the entire "illegal purchase" argument because you couldn't defend it, and now you’re trying to revive a flawed version of it to shield Kyle.

You cannot blame Black for an illegal act and simultaneously pretend that Kyle is absolved. Black was criminally charged and pleaded guilty to circumventing the law using Kyle's money and at Kyle's request. That transaction, initiated by Kyle, is the definition of an illegal straw purchase. Black's plea, regardless of the final penalty, is the legal proof the acquisition was illegitimate. Do I really need to explain yet again that straw purchases intended to circumvent laws restricting someone from obtaining something are illegal?

Furthermore, minimizing a curfew violation by saying "basically everyone was there" is a distraction. The issue is not the curfew in isolation, but that it was one of several intentional choices that flowed directly from the illegal foundation Kyle created. The sequence was:

  1. He paid for and arranged the illegal acquisition.
  2. He took that illegally obtained weapon into a conflict zone.
  3. He ignored the curfew law.
  4. He sought out a confrontation zone while carrying the weapon he believed he would need to use.
The entire tragic sequence began with a premeditated, illegal acquisition that Kyle Rittenhouse paid for and initiated, all with the demonstrable intent to enter and engage in a volatile situation. You are unwilling to admit that every subsequent choice was his own, directly contributing to the outcome.
 
He tried to retreat.
And succeeded. Then he circled back. And for all the claims that he cornered himself, he trotted right around the car he claimed he was trapped behind after killing Rosenbaum.

What I find significant is that he stood over Rosenbaum for a full minute, even as McGinnis tried to save him and shouted at Kyle to call 911. Our hero with his Walgreen bag of band-aids took no steps to save the life of his victim. Lest we accuse him of being in a stupor from shock, he called his buddy to say 'duuuuude, I totally killed some guy'.

These were not the acts of a victim. These were the acts of a killer.
 
You cannot blame Black for an illegal act and simultaneously pretend that Kyle is absolved.
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.
Black was criminally charged and pleaded guilty
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.
The entire tragic sequence began with a premeditated, illegal acquisition that Kyle Rittenhouse paid for and initiated, all with the demonstrable intent to enter and engage in a volatile situation.
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.
You are unwilling to admit that every subsequent choice was his own, directly contributing to the outcome.
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.
 
When someone chases you and grabs for your gun, it is reasonable to think that they mean you deadly harm. You are entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself. You are not under any obligation to assume that they will merely beat you, and that you should just take it.

So you agree, the fact that he was there with a gun is what created the whole problem, right? If he hadn't been there with a gun then no one would have seen him as a threat. We're making progress!
 
NVM

Ninja'd by Plague311 you bastard (just kidding)

We all know who the real bastard is.
 
Last edited:
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.

Because nobody else ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ killed anyone. This is the definition of "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ duh". There's no way you think this disingenuous ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ you're spouting will be taken seriously, right?
 
So you agree, the fact that he was there with a gun is what created the whole problem, right?
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.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom