Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[AmyStrange]

Once again, all I am saying is that it didn't start with the chase. It started before that with Rittenhouse carrying a gun. That doesn't mean I think he deserved to be chased or hassled, and if anyone wants to equate that with giving a mouse cheese, then that's your problem, not mine, but once again, that is just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course

 

[sackett]

Hell's afire, nobody can call little Kyle a murderer. He was tried for murder and
was acquitted. That makes the little pudge not a murderer, period, selah, amen,
thus spake Zarathustra.

He's a killer. He became a killer with one trigger pull. He'll always be a killer
(am I repeating myself? kinda think so) and no JREF/ISF-style wrangling will
change that.

If he ever tries pulling his one trick again, he'll have to take the consequences again. Will the same
cheerleaders speak up for him then?

Let's hope we never have to find out. That's sure my hope. Yours too?

 

[AmyStrange]

Hell's afire, nobody can call little Kyle a murderer. He was tried for murder and
was acquitted. That makes the little pudge not a murderer, period, selah, amen,
thus spake Zarathustra.

He's a killer. He became a killer with one trigger pull. He'll always be a killer(am I repeating myself? kinda think so) and no JREF/ISF-style wrangling will
change that.

If he ever tries pulling his one trick again, he'll have to take the consequences again. Will the same
cheerleaders speak up for him then?

Let's hope we never have to find out. That's sure my hope. Yours too?

I agree, but IMO, being a killer is not always the same thing as being a murderer.

 

[stanfr]

I agree, but IMO, being a killer is not always the same thing as being a murderer.

Yep, and even with murder there are degrees. I wouldn't put Kyle up there with a Ted Bundy for example, his lunacy is still in the formative stages. But I suppose if he continues to hold himself up as a Patriot and relishes his time with the Orange Anointed One, he could get there with time.

 

[AmyStrange]

ONce again...

"I'm not responding to whether she deserved it or not. I'm responding to the fact that dressing in a provocative matter is what started it. If she hadn't worn that short skirt and danced in such a sexy way, she wouldn't have been raped"

Also, if you want to use wearing a provocative outfit as the beginning of that timeline, then you'll have to prove that's what caused the jackass to rape her, whereas you don't have to prove that Rittenhouse with a gun wasn't the beginning of that timeline.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Also, if you want to use wearing a provocative outfit as the beginning of that timeline, then you'll have to prove that's what caused the jackass to rape her, whereas you don't have to prove that Rittenhouse with a gun wasn't the beginning of that timeline.

Nothing is ever the start of any timeline, as there are always prior events, but I'd say Emily's Cat's analogy holds up well enough. It was a pretty clear case of self-defence, as the jury found. Just bringing a gun to help defend a car dealership isn't provocative in any meaningful sense.

 

[Thermal]

Rittenhouse with his rifle unslung and at the ready is the start of the problem. He faced no threats at the inception to warrant a gun at the ready, much like you simply cannot walk around with a handgun drawn and at the ready, absent an imminent and immediate threat. If you do, anyone around you is within their rights to perceive you as an active shooter, as Huber, Freeman, and Grosskeutz, and possibly even Rosenbaum did (I personally think Rosenbaum was just calling Kyle's bluff). YOU are the threat when you have your weapon at the ready, absent an imminent, grievous threat

 

[AmyStrange]

Nothing is ever the start of any timeline, as there are always priors events, but I'd say Emily's Cat analogy holds up well enough. It was a pretty clear case of self-defence, as the jury found. Just bringing a gun to help defend a car dealership isn't provocative in any meaningful sense.

I'm not saying Emily is wrong, but regardless, you still have to prove that the provocative dress* was the beginning of that timeline, and anything before Rittenhouse brought the gun is also relevant, but not as much as what happened on that specific date and time.

That's the timeline I'm referring to. If you want to use another one, go for it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.


*ETA: You also have to prove it was provocative. It might've just been because she was a girl, and he was horny.

Now, walking into a dark alley all alone, in the middle of the night, is another story all together, because that would be the real beginning of that timeline, and I'm not saying she deserved or blamed her for it because of that, nor am I saying Rittenhouse deserved it or is the blame.

All I'm taking about is what I believe is the real timeline, and not who's to blame.

 

[stanfr]

Nothing is ever the start of any timeline, as there are always prior events, but I'd say Emily's Cat's analogy holds up well enough. It was a pretty clear case of self-defence, as the jury found.
Just bringing a gun to help defend a car dealership isn't provocative in any meaningful sense

How familiar are you with this case? Cause that's a very weird (and misleading) way to portray Kyle's actions that day. See Thermal's response on what he did.

 

[stanfr]

I personally think Rosenbaum was just calling Kyle's bluff

That's a distinct possibility. Something along the lines of "I'll blow you away if you get near me" Which is why I wish we had better evidence of what occurred immediately before the initial chase.

 

[AmyStrange]

That's a distinct possibility. Something along the lines of "I'll blow you away if you get near me" Which is why I wish we had better evidence of what occurred immediately before the initial chase.

Personally, I think Rosenbaum was on some kind of macho, testosterone-filled high, trying to prove how much of a man he was, but so was Rittenhouse.

A classic pissing contest between two idiots, but that's just my opinion.

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Ron Obvious]

How familiar are you with this case? Cause that's a very weird (and misleading) way to portray Kyle's actions that day. See Thermal's response on what he did.

What am I missing?

ETA: This is the Wikipedia summary of the events:

After Joseph Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse in a dealership parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Rittenhouse fatally shot him, soon after Joshua Ziminski had fired a shot nearby. [snip html] Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd. He fatally shot a second man, Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle in a brief struggle. [snip html] Afterwards, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse and pointed a pistol at him. Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in the right arm.

 

[stanfr]

What am I missing?

ETA: This is the Wikipedia summary of the events:

After Joseph Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse in a dealership parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Rittenhouse fatally shot him, soon after Joshua Ziminski had fired a shot nearby. [snip html] Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd. He fatally shot a second man, Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle in a brief struggle. [snip html] Afterwards, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse and pointed a pistol at him. Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in the right arm.

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

 

[stanfr]

Incidentally, If you actually watch the video, it does not look to me like he was 'cornered' as all his apologists allege, and the Wiki article regurgitates. Obviously your bias going in skews your impression of what you are looking at, but I don't see any sign of being 'cornered', or any sign that he grabbed the gun. ETA: in fact, he clearly continues to run after he shoots Rosenbaum. That directly contradicts the idea that he was cornered.

 

[AmyStrange]

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

Plus, if you don't mention that Rittenhouse brought the gun, the rest of the narrative doesn't make any sense.

Did he magically acquire it out of thin air while he was in the parking lot or being chased for no god damn good reason?

 

[stanfr]

Plus, if you don't mention that Rittenhouse brought the gun, the rest of the narrative doesn't make any sense.

Did he magically acquire it out of thin air while he was in the parking lot or being chased for no god damn reason?

It could have been worse, he could have been wearing a short skirt before the gun magically appeared.

 

[AmyStrange]

It could have been worse, he could have been wearing a short skirt before the gun magically appeared.

Well, that might be a good reason for the rapists to chase him, but it seems a bit much, even for my sick imagination.

 

[AmyStrange]

It could have been worse, he could have been wearing a short skirt before the gun magically appeared.

Damn it. For some reason that reminded me of a couple Bugs Bunny cartoons. He (?) was dressed in a skirt and pulling things out of thin air.

Hell, Bugs was always pulling things out of thin air.

 

[Ron Obvious]

You're missing the whole trial I think. Getting your summary from Wiki is not helping you any.

Was the summary incorrect? Why hasn't it been corrected then? Wikipedia is pretty reliable as a rule and it's been a while since the events.

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)

The same trial testimony that the jury heard before declaring Kyle not guilty?

 

[AmyStrange]

Was the summary incorrect? Why hasn't it been corrected then? Wikipedia is pretty reliable as a rule and it's been a while since the events.


The same trial testimony that the jury heard before declaring Kyle not guilty?

The Wiki summary doesn't make any sense.

All of a sudden, people are chasing Rittenhouse for no god damn good reason, and somehow, he'd acquired a gun out of thin air like he was Bugs Bunny or something.

It also sounds like a zombie movie to me. All of a sudden, all these people started chasing me...

It just doesn't make any sense to me.