Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[cmikes]

I'm confused. Are you saying he didn't kill anyone?

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed. His first response to the four people trying to ambush and kill him wasn't "Alright, my dream has come true, I get to kill people" and start blasting away, it was to run away from the people attempting to murder him towards the police line.

The irony is, for all the Sturm und Drang of people being outraged because some BLM members were prevented from killing someone they wanted dead, this was a bog standard case of self-defense. Rittenhouse's actions would have been ruled self-defense even in progressive states that have a "duty to retreat" clause before being allowed to defend yourself because he tried to run away after the initial ambush. It was only after being cut off from safety and knocked to the ground that he started to defend himself rather than run away, which is odd behavior if the whole reason he was there was to kill people.

And of course, this completely ignores to culpability of the people attempting to kill Rittenhouse. If they had simply returned to setting things on fire and destroying property after the initial assault on Rittenhouse, nothing further would have happened. It had been made clear that section of town was being abandoned to the tender mercies of BLM, so they had nothing to fear from the police. But they didn't just want Rittenhouse to stop putting out the fires they had been setting, they wanted him dead. As Rosenbaum put it earlier that night, "If I catch any of you [people trying to protect the town] alone, I'll kill you". Apparently, he recruited some other people to carry out his threat.

 

[Upchurch]

That's more than a little bit dated, and certainly doesn't speak to the issue of Antifa.

Actual antifa or all the BS the right blames on the antifa straw man?

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed. His first response to the four people trying to ambush and kill him wasn't "Alright, my dream has come true, I get to kill people" and start blasting away, it was to run away from the people attempting to murder him towards the police line.

The irony is, for all the Sturm und Drang of people being outraged because some BLM members were prevented from killing someone they wanted dead, this was a bog standard case of self-defense. Rittenhouse's actions would have been ruled self-defense even in progressive states that have a "duty to retreat" clause before being allowed to defend yourself because he tried to run away after the initial ambush. It was only after being cut off from safety and knocked to the ground that he started to defend himself rather than run away, which is odd behavior if the whole reason he was there was to kill people.

And of course, this completely ignores to culpability of the people attempting to kill Rittenhouse. If they had simply returned to setting things on fire and destroying property after the initial assault on Rittenhouse, nothing further would have happened. It had been made clear that section of town was being abandoned to the tender mercies of BLM, so they had nothing to fear from the police. But they didn't just want Rittenhouse to stop putting out the fires they had been setting, they wanted him dead. As Rosenbaum put it earlier that night, "If I catch any of you [people trying to protect the town] alone, I'll kill you". Apparently, he recruited some other people to carry out his threat.

I'm not convinced he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

 

[cmikes]

I'm not convinced he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

That's a valid opinion, but I agree with the jury in this case, especially in light of Rosenbaum's explicit and definite threat to kill any of the town's defenders that he caught alone.

That, in my opinion, was Rittenhouse's biggest mistake of the night. In that kind of situation, where you have roving bands of thugs destroying everything they can and you know the police have declared purge conditions and they are not being allowed to keep the peace, he should have never separated from the other people attempting to protect Kenosha.

That's why I've heard it speculated that the SUV on fire that Rittenhouse was going to put out was deliberate bait to try and separate the defenders.

 

[carlitos]

His father and his father's family live in Kenosha, and he worked there. He wasn't a stranger.

Nor was he protecting "his" town or was his house or his neighbor's house on fire. This was your crappy analogy, remember?

 

[plague311]

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed.

Being killed with what?

 

[cmikes]

Nor was he protecting "his" town or was his house or his neighbor's house on fire. This was your crappy analogy, remember?

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

Also, I have no idea what Rittenhouse's situation with his family is, but my parents were divorced when I was a kid, and while I lived full time with my mother, I also considered my father's house home. I didn't watch all the testimony, but he may well consider Kenosha his home also. He certainly knew plenty of people there, and worked in town.

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

 

[cmikes]

Being killed with what?

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed, Huber and Freeland followed up with his skateboard and boots, respectively. Whether the plan was simply to get him on the ground and beat him to death, or to have Grosskreutz come in and finish him with his pistol we don't know, since it definitely isn't in Grosskreutz's interest to admit to whatever they had decided or even if they had planned on anything besides "kill him".

 

[plague311]

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed,

Ok. so Rosenbaum attacked him with...nothing? That's all I needed. Thanks. The rest means nothing to me.

 

[cmikes]

Ok. so Rosenbaum attacked him with...nothing? That's all I needed. Thanks. The rest means nothing to me.

And that is why you fail to convince anyone. Context matters. Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

 

[plague311]

And that is why you fail to convince anyone.

Immediate failure on your part. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You made some **** up, I corrected it. You fail to convince anyone too, I'm just not really trying. You seem to take this case personally.

Context matters.

Yeah it does!

Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

Maybe, taken in context, Kyle shouldn't have had his ass out there to begin with.

I've accepted the self-defense ruling. I understand it, and I don't have many arguments with it because it's just not high on my list of things. That being said, I can still think and claim openly that Kyle Rittenhouse is a stupid piece of **** that made several dumbass decisions that resulted in the avoidable deaths had he just kept his ass at home (as they all should have).

That's the luxury for me here. I'm not a Kyle Rittenhouse nut hugger so I don't have to rail on his side. I'm also not adamantly against his sentence, so I don't have to rail on that side. I just get to explain, repeatedly, that he's a cowardly piece of **** and that's it.

 

[Thermal]

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

Also, I have no idea what Rittenhouse's situation with his family is, but my parents were divorced when I was a kid, and while I lived full time with my mother, I also considered my father's house home. I didn't watch all the testimony, but he may well consider Kenosha his home also. He certainly knew plenty of people there, and worked in town.

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

Legal concepts of Castle Doctrine and the like are usually limited to one's home, business, and car. To extend this kind of thinking to the public at large and declare yourself law enforcement where ever you decide to go is called...what's the word?...oh yeah, "vigilantism".

Kyle had no powers to "protect" Kenosha. Literally none. More to the point, by his own admission, he was not at all going there to protect Kenosha. He was going there at the invite of some LARPer soldiers to "protect" the burned-out and trashed car lot of a complete stranger, who offered to give them a couple of bucks later. Basically, he was a wannabe underage mercenary.

Kyle could not shoot property vandals. He had no police powers at all, and did not even have restraints if he was going to play at making a citizen's arrest. He did not call police, even when he killed people. Exactly what was he going to do to protect this random trashed car lot?

 

[plague311]

Kyle could not shoot property vandals. He had no police powers at all, and did not even have restraints if he was going to play at making a citizen's arrest. He did not call police, even when he killed people. Exactly what was he going to do to protect this random trashed car lot?

It was nice that he had time to call his buddy and brag it up though!

 

[Thermal]

And that is why you fail to convince anyone. Context matters. Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

Oh Christ, dude, no one was "backing up" Rosenbaum. Kyle killed him and ran off, and random uninvolved strangers reacted to a shooter on the run. That's all they knew: Kyle killed someone and was fleeing. No one would have any reason to believe that Kyle was anything but a fleeing killer, which is in fact precisely what he was.

 

[Thermal]

It was nice that he had time to call his buddy and brag it up though!

Right? That says all you need to know about whether he was there as Captain Kyle, Defender of Kenosha, or whether he was Cowardly Kyle, LARPing weakling.

 

[Ziggurat]

Legal concepts of Castle Doctrine and the like are usually limited to one's home, business, and car. To extend this kind of thinking to the public at large and declare yourself law enforcement where ever you decide to go is called...what's the word?...oh yeah, "vigilantism".

Kyle had no powers to "protect" Kenosha. Literally none.

That's really not true.

The mistake you are making is confining your definition of "protect" to only include the use of deadly force. Because that's the only time the Castle Doctrine gets invoked. Doing stuff like putting out fires (which Kyle did, and which enraged Rosenbaum) don't require the Castle Doctrine. And putting out fires is literally protecting people.

 

[Thermal]

That's really not true.

The mistake you are making is confining your definition of "protect" to only include the use of deadly force. Because that's the only time the Castle Doctrine gets invoked. Doing stuff like putting out fires (which Kyle did, and which enraged Rosenbaum) don't require the Castle Doctrine. And putting out fires is literally protecting people.

He carried a small kitchen fire extinguisher borrowed from Black's house. He was not going to extinguish much beyond a campfire with that.

Fortunately, he did take the time and money to invest in a $1500+ rifle and ammo, and even threw down a few more bucks that very morning for a sling.

What you spend time and money to adequately equip for speaks volumes about what you actually plan to do.

 

[carlitos]

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

The #1 charity that I contribute to is literally called "Doctors Without Borders," so I guess that it's possible to care for people as far away as possible.

Which has nothing at all to do with your failed argument via crappy analogy.

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

Who, anywhere in this thread, has exhibited a "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude?" Oh, that's right, no one.

Again, we were discussing your stupid analogy that compared a kid going 20 miles to pick up an illegal assault rifle and play soldier on a burnt-out used car lot with ... your house being on fire or helping your neighbor with a hose and bucket. Remember?

I know that if my house was on fire, and the fire department wouldn't be coming, I would be trying to save it even if all I had was a garden house and a bucket. Or my neighbor's house, for that matter.

No one's house was on fire in Antioch, IL. Or their neighbor's house either.

 

[fishbob]

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed, Huber and Freeland followed up with his skateboard and boots, respectively. Whether the plan was simply to get him on the ground and beat him to death, or to have Grosskreutz come in and finish him with his pistol we don't know, since it definitely isn't in Grosskreutz's interest to admit to whatever they had decided or even if they had planned on anything besides "kill him".

See post 114.
Armed man just shot somebody.
You wonder why others might take this as threatening?
You ever consider that they might be 'standing their ground' with a skateboard and boots?

 

[mgidm86]

All I get from this incident and trial is that this country has attitudes and gun laws that do not belong anywhere near the 21st century. It is shameful and disgusting.