Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what happened, thinking that latest witness testimony is some sort of gotcha.

It kind is, it will have an impact on the jury for the charge re: that incident - pretty clear verbal confirmation that Kyle has acted in self defence there.

The key part in all this is the first guy that he shot dead. After that, Kyle is perceived to be an active shooter by the public as he just shot an unarmed man dead ( so you could just totally reverse the whole "self defense" thing).

Doesn't negate Kyles right to self-defence it just provides a defence for the witness who drew his gun if he were to be charged (which hasn't happened, DA is a political position and they've turned a blind eye to his actions that evening).

Its a tricky case. If it was me, based on everything I've read i think the intentional homicide charges may be steep. I'm not convinced he wanted to kill people, but he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in and lost his ****.

I'm not sure where you think he "lost his ****" but everyone there put themselves in a situation they didn't need to be in, that's a non-argument re: the case/charges.

Therefore the "reckless" charges, and the gun related charges, i think he possibly deserves.

The "reckless" charges relate to a specific incident though, the first shooting. You can't just make up some vague argument that because he was in a dangerous situation and "lost his ****" then those are deserved... They relate to the first shooting happening in proximity to the journalist who we saw on the stand earlier.

 

[Jono8]

Only after being chased and threatened by him. Regardless what weapon/or lack of the other guy had Kyle was still well within his rights to defend himself. You also have to remember seconds before there were gunshots in the very near vicinity. I think its very easy to understand that Kyle would have thought his life was in very real danger.


There is an argument to say they have the right to protect themselves from an imminent threat just as kyle was. However, Kyle wasnt running at these people, he was trying to extract himself from the situation/danger. this mob was trying to do the opposite. I personally think Kyles actions that night were just. Him being there in the first place was questionable, but had the police been doing there job he wouldnt have had any reason to be there. Kyle having the rifle... Well if this is indeed against the law, then that should be addressed. As far as I see it that is the only thing he should answer for.

The difficulty with things like this, is that its all mostly a matter of personal perception, and how big a threat someone perceives something or someone to be.

So the guy first guy grabbed the barrell of Kyle's firearm? So what? Maybe Kyle was pointing it at him and he felt threatened so wanted to move the rifle away from himself or even disarm Kyle. Kyle's perception (likely because he was a nervous little kid playing army man) was that this guy was going to take the rifle from him and shoot him dead.

Then we have people nearby hearing that someone with a rifle has just shot and killed two people, possibly causing fear and panic , with some people reacting just like Kyle did in the first instance and escalating matters even more (ie by trying to stop him).

I don't think Kyle is solely to blame for it all. I think most of them are all as bad as each other and no one had the brains or composure to prevent what happened from happening. Kyle certainly should not have been there and his recklessness with his firearm has contributed massively to a tragedy.

Without any of us being there or having 360 degree HD footage of what transpired , no one will ever truly know how it all completely kicked off. The escalation was just people being people and no one having the composure to decrease tensions.

 

[dowie]

Again, you are completely disregarding that after he shot and killed the first unarmed man and retained use of his rifle, he is then perceived as a threat to the lives of others in the vicinity.

We're they not allowed to try and protect themselves from a perceived threat to their own life or is only Kyle allowed to kill people he thought were going to hurt/kill him?

Again, those other people aren't on trial.

Where did Kyle pose an imminent threat to them anyway - he was literally trying to get away from the 2nd attacker he shot and the 3rd attacker he shot at (and missed) so I'm not sure either of them could claim they were acting in self-defence, they might try and claim they were trying to arrest him but it's rather moot as the 2nd person is dead and the 3rd person hasn't been identified/hasn't come forwards).

As for the third person he shot (and hit), he's claiming to have been there as a medic too (like Kyle) but rather than stay and treat a gunshot victim he decided he'd chase down Kyle - Kyle didn't initially shoot him though and only did so when he drew his gun on Kyle. You don't really need to make the argument for him he's made it himself, quite successfully (and is claiming he never wanted to kill Kyle) and he hasn't even been charged.

 

[Skunkworks]

If you believe that Kyle was being completely non confrontational and never threatened or pointed his gun at anyone before it kicked off, so just randomly got targeted, then I have some even more expensive magic beans to sell you.

Thousands of people and hundreds of cameras - if that happened we'll very likely see it.

 

[dowie]

So the guy first guy grabbed the barrell of Kyle's firearm? So what? Maybe Kyle was pointing it at him and he felt threatened so wanted to move the rifle away from himself or even disarm Kyle. Kyle's perception (likely because he was a nervous little kid playing army man) was that this guy was going to take the rifle from him and shoot him dead.
[...]
Without any of us being there or having 360 degree HD footage of what transpired , no one will ever truly know how it all completely kicked off. The escalation was just people being people and no one having the composure to decrease tensions.

The defence tried that approach in court, that the witness (who was literally just behind Kyle and the first attacker) couldn't know the attacker's intentions, they got this reply for the jury to consider:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rit...loyd-kenosha-3b74864f491347cfdd09cfc22ffdf557

In an attempt to undo some of the damage done by his own witness, prosecutor Thomas Binger said McGinniss’ testimony about what Rosenbaum was intending to do was “complete guesswork.”

“Isn’t it?” he asked.

“Well,” McGinniss replied, “he said, `**** you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

They've also heard evidence that the first attacker made explicit threats to kill and had just been released from a mental facility that morning + didn't always take his meds etc..

That we don't know 100% what was going on in his mind probably isn't an issue here - I doubt the notion that maybe he was just trying to take a rifle away (which for all he knew was being held legally) is going to fly re: that particular charge.

 

[Jono8]

Where did Kyle pose an imminent threat to them anyway - he was literally trying to get away from the 2nd attacker he shot and the 3rd attacker he shot at (and missed) so I'm not sure either of them could claim they were acting in self-defence, they might try and claim they were trying to arrest him but it's rather moot as the 2nd person is dead and the 3rd person hasn't been identified/hasn't come forwards).

But this is my whole point. What imminent threat did the protestors pose to Kyle before he went there?

He still went there with a rifle and got mixed up in it. Apparently though, according to some in this thread he was just helping out and being an upstanding citizen as the police weren't there or doing anything about it. However when it comes to people who have just heard that there might be an active shooter in the vicinity, they were not supposed to react?

Many in this thread seems to have massive double standards when it comes to vigilantism and "self defense"

As i alluded to earlier, the whole thing is about people's perception of a threat and not knowing the facts of what has happened or what other people are thinking., and its exactly why any sort of vigilantism etc is not a good idea.

 

[deuse]

Yes, after he had just shot and killed an unarmed person.

I thought the mantra in the US was to use your god given right to a weapon to help take down active shooters/threats?

No.
He was chasing Kyle way before that with his gun drawn.
Please watch the trial to get your facts right.

 

[Jono8]

They've also heard evidence that the first attacker made explicit threats to kill and had just been released from a mental facility that morning + didn't always take his meds etc..

That we don't know 100% what was going on in his mind probably isn't an issue here - I doubt the notion that maybe he was just trying to take a rifle away (which for all he knew was being held legally) is going to fly re: that particular charge.

Which is entirely my point. Why are the feelings of the man who was shot and killed not taken into consideration? Perhaps he was acting in self defense by trying to disarm Kyle? He was quoted as saying “Don’t point no ********* gun at me!” so do you know for sure that he was not threatened and had rifles pointed at him? If that is the case, why was it not his right to act in self defense?

 

[Jono8]

No.
He was chasing Kyle way before that with his gun drawn.
Please watch the trial to get your facts right.

i think its you who need to check your facts again.

 

[Moley]

However when it comes to people who have just heard that there might be an active shooter in the vicinity, they were not supposed to react?

Yes there were supposed to react. They were supposed to run the hell away and hide which is what you, me or any other sensible person does when confronted with even the remotest possibility of being shot.

 

[dowie]

But this is my whole point. What imminent threat did the protestors pose to Kyle before he went there?

None - they posed a general threat to each other and to the city. I'm not really sure what the point is there - you could equally say what threat did he pose to them if they weren't there - it's totally moot, being there only relates to one (very minor) charge of breaching a curfew it doens't have much impact on the other charges AFAIK.

He still went there with a rifle and got mixed up in it. Apparently though, according to some in this thread he was just helping out and being an upstanding citizen as the police weren't there or doing anything about it. However when it comes to people who have just heard that there might be an active shooter in the vicinity, they were not supposed to react?

But again those people aren't on trial. one is dead, one is missing/doesn't want to come forwards, another was shot in the arm the others were just chasing/did nothing.

Many in this thread seems to have massive double standards when it comes to vigilantism and "self defense"

Double standard where - be specific. You're just making general arguments that don't seem to have much relevance - repeating some moot point about him being there which could apply to anyone there past curfew save for law enforcement and some argument that people who haven't even been charged might have a defence for their actions...

The active-shooter line is rather dubious considering he wasn't actively shooting anyone, he was simply running away towards police, the skateboard guy might argue he was trying to apprehend him though but again, he was running towards the police and the skateboard guy is dead/not on trial so kinda moot.

 

[Jono8]

None - they posed a general threat to each other and to the city. I'm not really sure what the point is there- you could equally say what threat did he pose to them if they weren't there - it's totally moot, being there only relates to one (very minor) charge of breaching a curfew it doens't have much impact on the other charges AFAIK.



But again those people aren't on trial. one is dead, one is missing/doesn't want to come forwards, another was shot in the arm the others were just chasing/did nothing.



Double standard where - be specific. You're just making general arguments that don't seem to have much relevance - repeating some moot point about him being there which could apply to anyone there past curfew save for law enforcement and some argument that people who haven't even been charged might have a defence for their actions...

The active-shooter line is rather dubious considering he wasn't actively shooting anyone, he was simply running away towards police, the skateboard guy might argue he was trying to apprehend him though but again, he was running towards the police and the skateboard guy is dead/not on trial so kinda moot.

Not sure why you keep bringing up who is and isn't on trial.

Not sure you are following what I'm saying at all.

There are glaringly obvious double standards going on within this thread when it comes to self defence and taking the law into one's own hands.

I'm sorry if your own bias blinds you to see it.

 

[deuse]

i think its you who need to check your facts again.

I have been watching the trial.
Have you?

That would be a no.
You're just an attention seeker.

 

[dowie]

Which is entirely my point. Why are the feelings of the man who was shot and killed not taken into consideration? Perhaps he was acting in self defense by trying to disarm Kyle? He was quoted as saying “Don’t point no ********* gun at me!” so do you know for sure that he was not threatened and had rifles pointed at him? If that is the case, why was it not his right to act in self defense?

How was he acting in self-defence by chasing someone down? If Kyle is running away from him and he's pursuing him then that's pretty suspect. Even the prosecutors didn't try that line, they just tried putting forth that the witness couldn't know what was in his mind... but that didn't work out to well as we saw with his testimony:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35226534/

Not sure why you keep bringing up who is and isn't on trial.

Not sure you are following what I'm saying at all.

There are glaringly obvious double standards going on within this thread when it comes to self defence and taking the law into one's own hands.

I'm sorry if your own bias blinds you to see it.

No, I'm dealing with what you posted - you made some vague argument re: the reckless charge that had no relation to the charge, you've made some argument that he shouldn't have been there in general that also had no relation to the charges and could apply to everyone else there save for law enforcement.

If you've got a specific argument to make then go ahead and make it, explain your self-defence argument for a given incident etc.. you seem to have ignored that and thrown in somethign about my own bias when I'm simply trying to get you to move past dubious vague claims:

Double standard where - be specific. You're just making general arguments that don't seem to have much relevance - repeating some moot point about him being there which could apply to anyone there past curfew save for law enforcement and some argument that people who haven't even been charged might have a defence for their actions...

The active-shooter line is rather dubious considering he wasn't actively shooting anyone, he was simply running away towards police, the skateboard guy might argue he was trying to apprehend him though but again, he was running towards the police and the skateboard guy is dead/not on trial so kinda moot.

 

[C Kent]

Yes there were supposed to react. They were supposed to run the hell away and hide which is what you, me or any other sensible person does when confronted with even the remotest possibility of being shot.

Any sane individual would do the same though. I browse a few other forums, one in particular is majority American based with a lot of gun owners and not one of them would act on hearsay - 'get him he just shot someone' and especially wouldn't act if the individual is in the process of moving towards the police in an act of surrendering.

 

[Jono8]

How was he acting in self-defence by chasing someone down? If Kyle is running away from him and he's pursuing him then that's pretty suspect. Even the prosecutors didn't try that line, they just tried putting forth that the witness couldn't know what was in his mind... but that didn't work out to well as we saw with his testimony:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35226534/



No, I'm dealing with what you posted - you made some vague argument re: the reckless charge that had no relation to the charge, you've made some argument that he shouldn't have been there in general that also had no relation to the charges and could apply to everyone else there save for law enforcement.

If you've got a specific argument to make then go ahead and make it, explain your self-defence argument for a given incident etc.. you seem to have ignored that and thrown in somethign about my own bias when I'm simply trying to get you to move past dubious vague claims:

LMAO

I've never seen a more gish gallopy post. This is good, even for you.

My argument has already been made and is quite succinct.

 

[dowie]

LMAO

I've never seen a more gish gallopy post. This is good, even for you.

My argument has already been made and is quite succinct.

Note how I've been making clear arguments yet in this post and the previous one you pivot to deflection and making it about me...

If you can't argue your point then that's fine but at least stick to the thread topic instead of going for ad hominems.

 

[C Kent]

LMAO

I've never seen a more gish gallopy post. This is good, even for you.

My argument has already been made and is quite succinct.

You seem to be conflating what is and what isn't self defense, actively chasing someone and threatening their life isn't a case of self defense which is what all 3 individuals did.

 

[ianh]

I agree. Therefore the comment "If you feel your life is under threat you're allowed to use deadly force.", isn't true is it.

It is true, you are allowed to anything thing you want, you just have to justify it afterwards to decide if what you did was legal or not, something which is far different than simply being allowed, which is all just semantics TBF.

I get it though, in fantasy land "if" Rittenhouse wasn't there then this wouldn't happen, just like "if" people didn't attack him they'd still be alive. However in reality he was there, people did attack him and he did shoot them - now it's upto a jury to decide, not us lot waffling on in here.

 

[dowie]

You seem to be conflating what is and what isn't self defense, actively chasing someone and threatening their life isn't a case of self defense which is what all 3 individuals did.

I did try to help him by suggesting that in the 2nd and 3rd shooting incident they might have been trying to apprehend him but he doesn't seem to want to go beyond vague claims and posturing now.