Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm getting at relevance. Of what relevance is it that both had a rap sheet? Even convicted criminals that did time have equal rights and protections under the law. Look at George Floyd as a current example.

The relevance is that it amply demonstrates that these two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen, making the defense's case easier that Mr. Rittenhouse had to act in self-defense.

The defense has to prove that those two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen based on their activity that night, not based on their criminal history. If we based wrong doing on someone's past history of offenses instead of what they are actively engaged in in any given incident, George Floyd would have never been honored and his death protested in the way that it has.

It'll probably be a year before this goes to trial. We'll have to wait and see how it all pans out.

[_Gadianton]

Shades: "That's just it: He did try his best to shoot him dead, but Rittenhouse neutralized his ability to do so before he could actually do it."

:shrug: did he? maybe his best was totally inept. I'd sure hate to find out what my own personal best is if I ever find myself in a crowd with a gun and I have to figure out who I should shoot or not. Exactly how long can pass between an initial killing, and non-LE interfering I don't know. I wonder if the courts know? If these confrontations between armed citizens in the streets in open carry situations continue, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing the end of open carry.

I don't follow the news very closely. I spent some time on this story mainly because I felt so bad for the kid. I suppose that's my own built-in prejudice. It sucks that it's that kid and not his fail-militia mentors. This is a problem with ideologues. Most of them are just a bunch of dumb asses blowing off steam and running their mouths. If they're in their 30's and 40's and employed, they've figured out where to draw the line. But you get a young kid like that who is all optimism, and as a deacon passing the sacrament with exuberance, while the Bishop and counselors look on, only half believing but enjoying the notoriety of sitting on the stand, Kyle did exactly what his teachers would have him do. Not what they likely would have done themselves.

[_Temp. Admin.]

The defense has to prove that those two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen based on their activity that night, not based on their criminal history.

Well, since their activity that night was looting followed by attempted murder, you surely agree that the defense will have an easy time proving that those two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen.

[_Jersey Girl]

The defense has to prove that those two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen based on their activity that night, not based on their criminal history.

Well, since their activity that night was looting followed by attempted murder, you surely agree that the defense will have an easy time proving that those two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen.

I ultimately don't agree with anything at this point.

[_Temp. Admin.]

In your mind, was Kyle Rittenhouse justified in defending his life?

[_Jersey Girl]

In your mind, was Kyle Rittenhouse justified in defending his life?

Are you talking to me? If so, I have to watch that video and other videos that I can find about 10 times each before I determine if/how they were edited or not and then draw whatever conclusions that I can. I'm not willing to accept the video that you posted as the only one that exists. It looks like it's been edited to me. I haven't read the arrest affidavit, I have no clue what theories of prosecution are going to be applied in this case since I didn't read the charges and discovery yet, eye witnesses need to be collected and interviewed, so I don't have a lot to go on at this point and it's not my job to make that determination to start with. All I can do is speculate.

When this goes to trial, we'll not be privy to what evidence was not permitted, we will never know the whole story. We'll only know the story that was presented at trial by both sides and if it goes the way I see other cases go, we won't even see the trial or the evidence during the trial itself unless someone gets their hands on leaked documents which also tends to happen quite a lot these days.


Given that we're only at the beginning of an investigation, I don't really have an answer I can hang my hat on.

[_Jersey Girl]

ETA: Given just what I saw in the video I'd have to say that was self defense, Shades. But like I said above, I don't know everything and I likely never will. The best I'll be able to do when the trial takes place is to try to see the case, testimony, and evidence, through the eyes of a jury. And even at that, trials don't always land the way you expected them to.

[Guest]

As were the looters who were trying to kill him.

He'd be dead if they wanted him dead. They were trying to disarm an active shooter. Period. You keep revising what happened in your own way that isn't what actually happened.

But he did have the legal right to defend his life--which is what this conversation is about.

That isn't for you to decide, it is for Wisconsin State law to decide, and I already showed you the law which states self-defense doesn't apply when the actor is engaged in an unlawful act and provocation. You're completing the stereotype here, a law enforcement officer cherry picking which laws he really cares about while ignoring those he doesn't.

The evidence at 2:32 in the original video.

Which doesn't support your assertion.

Gaige Grosskreautz is the third shoot-ee's name: "'So the kid shot gaige as he drew his weapon and gaige retreated with his gun in hand. I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward,' a friend of Grosskreutz wrote in a chat."

Are you damned kidding me? You're using an after the fact remark based on hearsay from some anonymous internet chat room, to prove he intended to kill him from the start? You ignore the fact that this guy was armed the entire time, chased him down the street without shooting him, and could have easily shot him had he wanted to. He clearly had far more respect and concern for human life than the 17 year old idiot who was trigger happy and went there to "defend" someone else's private property with his gun. We already know this was his intention because he said so.

So, the only way he could defend property with a gun is to shoot someone, which is illegal. You don't have a legal right to kill someone just because they're bashing in someone else's window, and there is no evidence that any of the three people he shot were actively looting that night.

No, he didn't do "his best," because he lamented being just a bit too slow on the draw.

Again, this was an after the fact statement he allegedly made, and is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he didn't kill him. "Slow on the draw" is a very misleading description of what happened. You need to take your biased "I'm a cop" goggles off and realize this wasn't some showdown at the O.K. Corral. The guy who was shot clearly had the drop on him, was running right behind him, could have easily shot him in the back, could have easily shot him as he tripped, could have easily shot him after he lost control of his rifle, could have easily shot him as he was shooting the skateboard guy, etc. You're ignoring all of this so you can recreate a narrative that better suits what you want to believe.

No there wasn't--and no he couldn't--'cause Rittenhouse shot him in the same arm in which he was holding the handgun. (That's pretty accurate gunfire by Rittenhouse.)

Again, he could have shot him at several points prior to that.

Travelling someplace doesn't equal initiating. In addition, running away doesn't equal initiating, either.

There is nothing rational about what he did, and it was premeditated. He's no hero but people who are racist "F"s will idolize him nonetheless. He's a bad actor who shouldn't have been there to begin with and his actions resulted in two deaths. Period. They'd still be alive if he hadn't gone there. Fact. He intentionally broke laws and inserted himself into a hostile situation that had nothing to do with him because he wanted to show off and make a political point by pretending to be a law enforcement agent. The fact is we don't know what initiated the original confrontation between him and Rosenbaum. But there were others who were chasing him and they weren't going after any of the other two dozens armed militiamen, so this would suggest Rittenhouse did something to trigger them. Hopefully a thorough investigation will uncover more evidence and eye witness testimony as to how that played out prior to the initial chase.

And if three people hadn't tried to kill someone that night, three people wouldn't have been shot.

Now you're just being obtuse. No one tried to kill anyone prior to those shots being fired. You're just making that up in a lame attempt to justify premeditated murder.

And the looters went there looking to cause trouble, as most looters do.

Irrelevant to the fact that he intended to "defend" property by using his gun, which means shooting people. Which means his murders were premeditated.

Why didn't the mob try to detain/disarm the first idiot who shot into the air?

The video clearly shows people screaming and pointing at Rittenhouse, identifying HIM as the person who just killed someone. That is the reason more people were involved in trying to disarm him. They hear gunshots up the street, and then a minute later they see a guy with an assault rifle running towards the cops as people behind him are screaming to get him because he just killed someone.

And why didn't the mob try to detain/disarm the guy who tried to shoot Rittenhouse?

No one tried to shoot Rittenhouse. You're making things up.

When does defending property against a mob count as "provocation?"

Anyone walking around with an assault rifle is provoking in an attempt to intimidate. But according to Rittenhouse's classmates, he had a long history of trying to "trigger the libs." That's basically provocation. Some of his classmates joked that he’d be a mass shooter one day. “I personally believe he went to Wisconsin with the intent to kill,” said one former classmate. “If you said anything bad about Trump, he’d threaten you." “He went to middle school with my little sister and she said that everyone always thought of him to be a possible future shooter,” said Joe, “and so did I when I met him in high school.”

What a sweetheart this kid was, eh?

17 and already his peers think he would be a murderer. Meanwhile, the three victims you demonize as "attempted murderers" are grown adults who have never been arrested for anything close to attempted murder. But in your mind, they're the ones who had intent to kill.

He was rotating among three things before all this started: A) Standing there, B) trying to put out a fire, or B) trying to render medical aid.

And you believe that's all he did and why he was there?

I can't comment on a video I've never heard of. Please post a link to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1TKShe ... 1599443266

His sister attacked a girl, who began to defend herself when fruity Kyle comes up from behind her and starts wailing on the side of her head. A few black boys got out of their car to beat the crap out of him, saying "you don't ever put your hands on a female."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Anyway, if you have a moment, do you know if he or others were aware that the guy was a pedo prior to the incident?”

Nah, no chance. The deceased was outed on Twitter and 4chan post mortem along with the arrest records of skateboard guy and shot-in-the-arm guy. The pede was going around screaming at the libertarian multi-racial militia that Rittenhouse was hanging out with - I don’t know if there was any sort of association between them outside of that evening. At one point the pede was screaming at them to, “Just shoot me! Shoot me!”

Moving on.

Later when Rittenhouse moved to the second mechanics shop the pede was following him. Some dude near by, but behind them popped off a round causing Rittenhouse to swing around. That’s when the pede rushed him and threw something at him, and was shot by Rittenhouse. It all happened within about two seconds.

Rittenhouse then checked on the pede, made a call to someone - either a friend or 911 - and said something to the effect, “I just killed somebody.” That’s when it appeared he decided to make a run for it to the cops to presumably turn himself in or at least get some protection. The rest is history.

- Doc

[_Icarus]

Still waiting for proof this guy was a "pedophile."