Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

Following on from the self defence thread what does GD think of this incident? This has been discussed in the Trump thread in SC as the polarisation of issues like this are perhaps relevant to the upcoming election but a comment was made that the discussion was kind of taking over the thread (which was fair) might as well throw the question open to a larger number of forum members.

Please don't actually discuss Trump or the election in this thread - just this incident itself - whch is between a white/latino teen and mostly white protestors/rioters - so no need for the usual stuff about race or accusations of racism being thrown around etc..etc..

The weak Democrat Governor of Wisconsin refused a request for 2000 national Guard troops to assist the vastly outnumbered Kenosia police department after 2 days of violence from dangerous insurrectionists (BLM/Antifa), instead sending only a mere 250, just enough to protect the local court house and leaving the community defenceless.

A brave local militia called instead for volunteers to help defend local businesses, heroic Latino Police supporter Kyle, aged only 17, joined this ad hoc citizens militia. they spent the day helping clear up from the previous night's violence and then got ready to keep watch over the property of hard working business owners. The local police provided some water and thanked these local heroes.

Pic of our hero here as a police cadet in the town he wanted to protect:


Later that night an angry mob intent on arson and destruction arrived, a particularly angry 5ft 3inch paedophile started pushing and shoving militia members and shouting the n-word, the paedophile took a particular interest in young Kyle, he was later seen chasing and eventually cornered young Kyle, another protestor at this moment fired a handgun and Kyle had no chance but to shoot the paedophile.

Kyle then ran for his life, he was caught up by members of the angry mob and fell to the floor after one insurrectionist punched him in the back of the head, another insurrectionist tried to brutally stamp on his head, then another (also a convicted felon, violence, domestic violence etc..) tried to attack with a skateboard - Kyle managed to shoot him to, lastly an insurrectionist made the cowardly move of pretending to surrender then pointed a handgun at Kyle's head - Kyle also shot this guy, showing him mercy by only taking aim at his arm (this guy is also a former convict and member of a couple of far left extremist groups).

Our hero then put his hands up and walked towards the outnumbered but brave police officers of Kenosha, they had no time for our hero as they have to deal with the mob and the injured... he's since been charged by an obviously dubious assistant DA.

It's disgusting that the Governor didn't send enough national guard troops to begin with, we should vote him out at the next election.

The racist-ass police in Kenosha need to answer for what they've done - white silence is white violence - the largely peaceful but fiery (see CNN) protests have left some property damage, but that is nothing compared to the damage done every day to the lives of people of colour by the police - we need to defund these pigs!!!!

A bunch of blue lives matter loving, domestic terrorists decided to congregate in Kenosha in order to intimidate the peaceful protestors. One peaceful protestor, a reformed convict who is trying to change his ways, tried to have a discussion with a young blue lives matter terrorist, we do try and keep him away from the kids but he was viciously shot dead by this monster!

Pic of the domestic terroist here:


Some brave peaceful protestors gave chase, decided this was an "active shooter" situation, it doesn't matter that he wasn't actively shooting anyone - that's at least vaguely similar enough to what right wing people always argue so we're running with it. One brave person tried to grab the back of his head, another brave protestor nearly collided with him but managed to jump free - the terrorist almost shot this person. Another brave peacefully protestor tried to pull his rifle away and accidentally dropped a skateboard on him - this heroic peaceful protestor was shot dead. Lastly a good guy with a gun tried to intervene and was shot in the arm.

the domestic terrorist is now being charged with 1st degree homicide as he should be.

It's disgusting that our Governor has now sent more national guard troops in to deal with the peaceful protestors, we should vote him out next election.

For a more balanced take - see the NY Times analysis of the video evidence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

an updated story from a local (to Illinois - the state the kid lives in) station:
https://abc7chicago.com/antioch-tee...tal-shooting-to-remain-in-il-custody/6393073/

Also take a look at the wiki re: the Kenosha protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_protests#Fatal_shooting_of_protesters

This was posted (by @Johno please? )in the Trump thread - shows the the sort of take a pro 2nd ammendment (but not complete loony) American might have of the incident:

(fair warning - contains some footage etc..)

Details of the actual complaint/charges and descriptions of the events relating to these charges:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9sDjYr1Nj_fpFr9bTycWPG8tS2aPDeL/view

Legal review posted (by @garnett) the Trump thread:

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...osha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

So what are your views GD?

Here is my view:

Spoiler

He's likely (but not a dead cert, see above link re: legal arguments) going to get done on the weapon's charge
I suspect the 1st degree Homicide charges have a lot of 2nd amendment fans worried, throw in that local people probably dislike the riots/destruction and he's likely going to have good private lawyers defending him... I don't think they will hold up in front of a jury if it gets that far - I'd say he maybe gets a lesser murder or manslaughter charge or he walks completely on these and gets a charge for the weapon alone, either because a jury won't convict him or because of the prosecutors making a mistake with over charging

 

[dowie]

There is a missing thread of info on how he ended up on the run from people just before the first incident. Why had he left his station, why was he alone, etc.

It complicates it, but not enough for me to change my mind - he should never have been there in the first place, and the very act of being there meant he was ready to use lethal force.

Yes - it is completely nuts, where were his parents etc..? But, remember, this is 'merica, land of the 2nd amendment, you can legally open carry military weapons in that part of 'merica, the only issue here is his age - the other gun nuts were legal. Of course someone carrying a gun is ready to use it if necessary - being prepared to use it (in self defence) isn't a crime in itself.

I think the only way to look at this is to remmember it is the US not the UK and to keep in mind that guns are common there, legal to own etc.. and that open carry of them isn't a big deal in the way it would be if someone had a military style rifle on the streets here. It's either perfectly legal or it's a misdemeanor crime because he's 17.

Some more details have come out (albeit - note these seem to be from favourable sources) - there is actually a defence for the weapons charge too - he was (according to a witness) there with his (older) brother, ergo... that was the reason (according to the talk show host/clip below) he could legally carry a rifle (he had someone over the age of 18 with him) - I guess that is yet to be argued in court though. Also the rifle was apparently obtained locally, chat on social medai about illegally crossing state lines with an illegal weapon etc.. seems to be wrong.

Account of the night seems to be that he was a lifeguard working in the town, he was working that day at the local pool, after his shift he volunteered to clean graffiti up at the local school (there are pics of him doing this), he then (with a friend) answered a call to help protect a local business owner's premises that had been targeted that night, business owner welcomed them apparently. Kyle was there to assist with medical help (something he apparently is witnessed doing too - assisting a protestor who had been shot with a rubber bullet etc...) so far this doesn't seem like someone just going there to try and find an excuse kill protestors, quite the opposite (at least if this witness account is true).

The bit where the confrontation happens is apparently (again according to the witness and the lawyer statement) seems to be when he's not able to get back to the mechanic's shop he was originally at as the police have moved forwards and blocked his route - he complies with their orders, he then heads over to assist other armed "militia" types at one of the business owners other properties another mechanic's shop - it is then that he's spotted by some of the aggressive protestors as someone there to protect the business (according to the wtiness he actually tries to stop some car fires) - that's where he's chased by them, that's where one of them fires a weapon (handgun) and another guy closes in on him and tries to attack him, grab his weapon - this is the first guy he shoots/kills. He seems to initially hang around but then needs to run as a group of aggressive protestors is still after him, especialy now he's shot someone too... and then we see the clearer clip we've seen all over the internet where he falls and proceeds to shoot people who are (pick one) attacking/trying to disarm him - (depending on which perspective is being argued)....

He then apparently tries to surrender to the police, who just tell him to get away from their vehicles... he apparently goes back home and hands himself in in his local police station instead.

As nuts as this entire situation is (and granted this is coming from a fellow militia witness and his lawyers) he does seem to have a defence for all the charges(assuming the brother/weapons thing is legit), it's just down to a jury I guess. I mean seems there is an argument of at least reasonable doubt re: the first shooting from it seemingly being an unprovoked attack + shots being fired by a protestor from the group who seemed to be after him.

The other two shooting incidents - he's again only shot people who have attacked him - arguably they could be said to be trying to apprehend him, but he was running away from them and wasn't an active threat per se. It's not completely clear if the second person shot didn't actually cause the rifle to firm himself when he pulled it - that's a possible argument for the defence. The third guy was armed with a handgun - that seems like an obvious one, especially since he's not been killed. That guy has, according to social media posts, expressed regret that he didn't kill Kyle! He's probably got an argument that he was trying to stop a shooter - though that doesn't negate that Kyle has a possible argument for self defence there too.

link to interview:
https://wiba.iheart.com/featured/vi...to-talk-about-the-kyle-rittenhouse-situation/

link to statement from lawyer:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299482433218375680

 

[dowie]

Link or it didn't happen.

I think he's referring to the 2nd and 3rd people getting shot (the incidents where we have clear video footage), they weren't really right next to him, the poster seems to be mistaken, he carries on down the street and the police vehicles are driving towards him, he then holds his hands up and tries to approach them only to either be ignored or be told to move away.

 

[dowie]

He might well have been - the lawyer's statement just says "he turned himself in to the police his home town" - perhaps he called them and they picked him up rather than him going to the station?

edit - according to witness - when they called him he was already at the local (home town) police station with his mum.

 

[dowie]

The person who was shot in the hand had a gun, thats fair enough as hes on the ground. He shot someone who was running away...

He also shouldn't be walking the streets with an assault rifle but lets just ignore that little fact.

Who did he shoot that was running away?

On the second point, no one is ignoring it but the context is this is a US state where that is either allowed or is a misdemeanour, you’ve got to look at it from their legal perspective not ours... yes it’s nuts!

 

[dowie]

It is.

The biggest point for me is why the protestors were following him/angry with him in the first instance. Why was Kyle singled out? Why weren't other "militia" members chased/in this situation where they had to open fire and kill people? I would be surprised if this whole thing was entirely unprovoked.

There are reports that say he threatened them with his rifle. If thats the case, surely the protestors were acting in self defence/trying to disarm him?

I guess we will have to wait till the court case to find out exactly what the prosecutors have in terms of unreleased footage/witness statements.

Yup that last be could be key, so far the reporter says they were chasing him. The other milita witness says it was because he got separated after administering first aid to protestors then tried to stop some car fires at the businessman’s other property. I guess that’s where the other possible witnesses come in, has he brandished a weapon in doing that?

Though even if he had, he then retreats and is chased - so can he still claim self defence when a shot is fired behind him and the first attacker tries to grab his gun?

(Other, maybe rather speculative, question is - was the first guy shot only by him or also by a stray bullet from whomever fired first in the group of protestors pursuing Kyle?)

He likely went out there primarily looking for a fight and guised it in the helping the wounded line.

There isn’t much to suggest that though, it requires some mind reading, in fact he seems to have acted like most of the other militia guys albeit he’s one of the guys LARPing as a medic and helping out protestors. Certainly the story that he got isolated/ couldn’t make it back to his initial location at the first mechanic’s shop because police had blocked the route can be checked out, that he treated people can be checked out. It’s those circumstances that put him in the dangerous position where he then heads to the second mechanics shop and the people who are trying to set cars on fire... I guess this is the bit where we need more details, but again his actions there - running away - don’t indicate that he’s looking for a fight, it seems he only fights(shoots) after he’s first attempted to retreat and each of the attackers is right on him. I suspect that fact is going to be pretty significant in the court case.

 

[dowie]

Has to be a threat to his life from what I've read. Can you argue grabbing his gun is a threat to his life? I don't know, it's debatable.

I’m not sure, I think it’s a threat to his life or serious harm. If you’re armed and an attacker tries to disarm you then that in itself might count? Not to mention just the attack itself having potential for serious harm... first shooting shot(s) we’re fired by the aggressive group behind him, then one had caught up with him and grabbed or tried to grasp his rifle - I presume he likely can argue it for that incident.

 

[dowie]

Instead of the how about you enlighten me as to why a 17yr old decided to illegally turn up with a rifle?

Apparently works in the town as a lifeguard after work he helped clear up graffiti at the local school then and then found out about a call for volunteers to help a local business owner who’d been targeted the night before and wanted to protect what was left of his businesses. So he brought along his first aid kit (presumably the one he uses as a lifeguard) and obtained/was given a weapon belonging to someone else for self defence.

 

[dowie]

Have you seen the video where he uses a fire extinguisher on a dumpster they were trying to push into a local business? How do you know no one would've died if that burned down a building? If they weren't out vandalising/looting while calling it protesting, then decided to play the stupid game of attacking a man with an AR-15 (imagine actually being that stupid), it's likely no one would have died.

Was that definitely him with the fire extinguisher?

If that’s the case I think that might be the reason for the first time he’s attacked/chased...

The counter point to if he didn’t have a weapon then likely no one would have died is that arguably he could have died or been seriously hurt by the protestors. We’ve seen plenty of instances of people becoming the target of mob violence - from old people trying to protect their businesses through to the guy with the truck who tried to stop an attack on a homeless trans woman and got beaten/kicked in the head for it.

He’s got as much right as the protestors to be there - arguably more if he’s on private property at the invitation of the business owner.

Everyone who died was attempting to attack him.

You never watched the video.
The guy who got killed and fired at the kid had a gun.

And it's all down to the Democratic governor not doing his job.

It isn't clear that is the same person who fired the shot(s) initially in the first incident - the person with the handgun is the last person he shoots (in the arm) after he's been chased and he doesn't initially shoot him, he only does so when the guy makes a move to point the handgun at him.

 

[dowie]

No one fired at the kid. He did hear a gunshot. That was it. And the people he killed, were they also firing at the kid?

that first bit isn't clear yet - a gunshot (possibly more than one) was fired, seemed to come from a group pursuing him. It would be interesting to know what it was fired at and whether it hit the first attacker. Etiher way, the first guy shot, according to the journalist/witness was pursuing/attacking him... as were others.

Erm this was after he killed someone shooting them in the head. I expect people to take down the shooter.

Why, he was no longer shooting anyone and initially seemed prepared to hang around at the scene of the first person he shot... he was already being pursued by some aggressive protestors though so took off... thing is he's then running towards police, they're not shouting for him to stop or give himself up they're shouting "kick his ass" "get him" etc..

I suspect it is an arguent the guy with the handgun can use but note the kid aims a his rifle at him and doesn't shoot, the only point he shoots is when the guy with the handgun makes a move to try and shoot him... and this is when police are already heading down the road towards them.

 

[dowie]

That is completely wrong. Two of the people he shot dead were trying to take him down because he killed someone after hearing a gunshot.

I think you need to check your maths there - he killed a total of two people - how can he have killed someone and then killed two more people?

The first person attacked him, he didn't just shoot because he heard a gunshot.

The second person he killed attacked him with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle - in fact it's not clear whether that in itself caused the rifle to fire - if it was slung and his finger was on the trigger then pulling the barrel wasn't a good move....

The third person he didn't kill, he initialy pointed a rifle at and only shot him (in the arm) when he made a move to shoot the teen with the handgun he was armed with. I mean supposing the guy with the handgun did shoot him dead - then what - surely if you're defending that action (from the handgun guy) then now handgun guy is also a shooter and following your logic is fair target for anyone else with a gun to chase down and kill right? But then they become a shooter too and so on...

He's got a self defence argument regardless - the intent of the latter two - which requires some mind reading in the case of the second killing doesn't negate that.

In fact it seems like the skateboarder guy was with the first attacker - so if he was pursuing before the first shooting then...

Regardless - important points for his defence are that he retreated from all of them and only fired when attacked.

 

[dowie]

Ok fine, he shot two more people. That would be the correct statement.

Yes, after running away from them and only after they attacked him...

The point still remains that if you're stating that the hangun guy is allowed to chase him down and try to shoot him (i.e. act like a vigilante) even when he's no longer a threat then surely the handgun guy then becomes a shooter too and according to that logic - anyone can now chase down and kill the handgun guy and then they become a shooter too and so on...

In fact if you're arguing for people being vigilantes then isn't that what these militia guys were doing in the first place - like stopping arsonists etc..?

That is seemingly what caused the first incident - the kid stopping protestors who wanted to set fires.

The point that the kid is retreating and only shoots when attacked is fundamental here regardless of any claims of good intentions of the later two attackers.

 

[dowie]

This is why allowing the public to carry fire arms is a daft idea.

Yup - the whole thing is nuts... in fact it does open up to situations where say the guy with the handgun perhaps has a claim to shoot the kid and the kid has a claim to defend himself...

There have been incidents in the US, using castle doctrine or stand your ground where both parties(or indeed multiple parties attacking each other) in a shooting have been found not guilty on the grounds of each of them acting in some manner of self defence....

 

[dowie]

Even if that is a Molotov cocktail, it's not lit and hence is no threat. Someone chasing after you isn't necessarily a threat to his life. Even if he grabbed his gun, which isn't clear, he'll have a hard time arguing it was a threat to his life imo. Also how could he shoot him if his gun was grabbed?

How is the man who is following him with a gun any greater threat than himself following the group with a gun?

Well if he succeeds in taking it off him then he's quite clearly a threat... he's a greater threat as he's the attacker, the guy with the gun is retreating/trying to get away from them.

"How could he shoot if his gun was grabbed" - by pulling the trigger - it's not clear his gun was grabbed in the first incident just a claim by the witness that the person shot tried to do so. In the second one you can see it being grabbed, in fact that is what might have caused it to fire even.

You're also ignoring the vigilante premeditated nature of the crime. He went to an area where he knew there were protestors with a killing machine in order to intimidate and threaten them.

Based on what? The evidence doesn't show that so far - it seems to back up his claim that the rifle was for self defence and that he's there to provide first aid and to watch over the businesses. If you look at the earlier clips they're happily talking to protestors and saying they're not their enemy eyc.. they're there to help, just don't attack businesses etc.. go attack the cops etc.. see the clip here for example:

https://www.somebitchtoldme.com/post/instigators

It does seem that the fire extinguisher incident is what made him a target if that is indeed him in the clip.

Fire arms have been misused by governments as much as they have been misused by private citizens.

@dowie this is the video I watched

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts43EskooaA

Yeah have seen that one - just wasn't clear that it was Kyle - it does seem the first attacker is in that video too and possibly the skatebaord guy with him... if that is him then that perhaps explains how he became a target for those two.

 

[dowie]

Why are people defending him so much? Or course he was attacked, of course they tried to take his gun, he’d just shot and killed someone. (The video clearly shows he sits up and shoots the 2nd and 3rd people, it wasn’t accidental discharge).

Would these people have defended that terrorist on the bridge in London (the one who was stopped by the guy what a Narwhal tusk) if he had killed one of the guys trying to stop him? Of course not.

I’m sure they would be saying the exact opposite if it was someone with different political beliefs to them doing the shooting

The terrorist on London Bridge attacked people, actively went into a place and tried to kill people. He was then apprehended and the police killed him.

This guy didn't attack people, he retreated when attacked and only killed people who caught up with him and attacked him at close range.

If you're defending the actions of the people who got involved on London bridge re: the terrorists - then presumably you'd defend the actions of this kid apparently using a fire extinguisher to put out a bin fire/stop the arsonists? That's what seems to have made him a target and caused him to be chased.

 

[dowie]

Your point? People are trying to paint the kid as some gun loving saint who was just defending himself and had every right to be there apparently.

Except that entire premise is wrong.

Castle doctrine apply when you are breaking the law and confronting people with an illegal rifle?

Castle doctrine is irrelevant here (save for possibly the first one as they were there on behalf of the business owner).

It’s not needed though as he didn’t stand his ground using deadly force to defend the business, he retreated and was simply defending himself using deadly force.

 

[dowie]

Rittenhouse was also illegally possessing a firearm.

That isn’t clear, he might have been, in which case that misdemeanour charge could hold up. He might have a defence for it via his older brother being a guardian (according to witness on the radio interview).

Regardless of that, it doesn’t prevent him from being allowed to defend himself with it.

 

[dowie]

Please stay factual. The video evidence given in the link I provided shows that it was lit. Did you watch the video before claiming it wasn't lit?

I’m not sure it does. It seems to be a bag containing a bottle (or maybe a brick or something?).

It’s not particularly important though - main thing is that he was being chased by someone trying to physically attack him and - he was trying to avoid the attack and got cornered.

 

[dowie]

This day did not start at the point he was supposedly defending himself.

The US is a country which has laws like felony murder.

Yes, those are two correct and fairly generic statements. The concept of time exists, the day didn’t start at night time and the US is a country with laws.
I’m not sure what they add to the thread though?

I’m not being funny but if you’re going to quote a post then at least make an attempt at discussion.

 

[dowie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299637494053511169

Looking like this was the call to arms that drew a lot of the Trump crowd to Kenosha...

Problem with criticising facebook over this is that these two deaths are two out of 30+, if they believe that any calls condoning violence or encouraging gatherings of people that might lead to violence should be banned then FB would need to take down a whole load of BLM, Antifa groups and ban various supporters who are condoning violence, looting etc.. there were various CHAS/CHOP accounts happily posting away and they had heavily armed "security" too... resulted in several shooting events inc deaths. I don't recall her criticising the lack of action behind the Seattle based antifa, BLM etc.. accounts.

From what I've read, arguments of self defense have to be made by the defense team. It's for them to prove it actually was self defense. The defense have to make the argument that the first man walking towards Rittenhouse posed a threat to his life and/or greater bodily harm. I wouldn't think walking into someones personal space is a threat to either. Perhaps taking his gun was a thread, but how close was this to happening? Was shooting this man 4 times a reasonable response?

Have you watched the footage of both that event and the behaviour of this guy you claim "walked" towards him, no he didn't shoot him because he invaded his personal space, he wasn't walking either - he was pursued and attacked by this guy who then tried to grab his firearm - I'd be quite surprised if that didn't have an obvious self defence element to it. In fact I do wonder if some of the charges might well be dropped or reduced prior to trial.

Trying to pretend this is just an issue of someone walking into his person space is frankly disengenous.