Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

A. Kyle did not know his criminal history so its irrelevant
B. The force to which Rosenbaum may have "assaulted" Kyle, whether he wanted to take his gun and whether he was going to murder him is entirely conjecture.

The only "fact" and provable action that Rosenbaum took, was to chase him.

That's simply false - we have additional facts too - the fact that Rosenbaum continued to chase him even after Kyle turned and pointed a rifle, the fact that Rosenbaum was clearly agitated/angry on earlier footage shot that night - he was the obvious trouble maker, the fact there was residue left on his had/that we have evidence he grabbed Kyle's rifle.

You've stated:
There is absolutely a good argument to be made for why deadly force was not necessarily reasonable in this situation.

Yet when asked, you can't seem to give one, you just deflect/avoid and go into vague statements about believing the prosecutors etc..

I have backed up my assertions. You just keep calling them "dubious", or asking me the same thing repeatedly which i have already gone over.

You haven't though, you've replied to me several times in a row deliberately avoiding doing any such thing... the standard deflection you've done all through this thread.

Why not just answer?

 

[dowie]

Maybe until he reasonably could have run no more/got cornered? Its clear from the video he still could have kept running.

OK suppose that were true, for the sake of argument... then suppose he gets caught in a spot 50 meters away... then what? Is it still unreasonable to shoot - assume all other actions are the same just the running part you're objecting to has been exhausted?

 

[dowie]

A.) It isn't false at all.

your claim: "The only "fact" and provable action that Rosenbaum took, was to chase him."

Clearly is false given I've literally just cited other facts. Note you're not denying the presence of forensic evidence re: his hand?

B.) The residue on his hand does not confirm he actually grabbed the barrel.

Hmmm that's a reach. It's pretty strong evidence - Kyle stated he grabbed, it, the forensics back that up with the residue on his hand, the main witness/journalist nearby backs up the claim that he lunged at Kyle... Do you think his hand accidentally fell and wrapped itself around the end of the barrel then?

You clearly have a problem with the following the arguments you come in and weigh on in here. I specifically outlined my reasons for thinking so within today's posting (sighting how he only retreated a small amount before turning and killing him and providing the jury instructions which could infer guilt due to that).

You just deflect/avoid answering all through the thread. Is it just the retreating aspect that concerns you then?

 

[dowie]

That would depend on the situation/what Rosenbaum does.

Already specified in the question, everything else the same just removing your objection re: not fleeing enough.

In the ACTUAL situation we have Rosenbaum chasing him and then Kyle stopping/turning and shooting him 4 times as he falls, before Rosenbaum even lays a hand on him. I don't think reasonable force was used.

Again though - WHY?

If we're assuming he's exhausted the fleeing option then what is the argument? You're again just making an assertion - are you really not able to say " I believe X because..." and then actually give an argument?

 

[dowie]

the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that Jono doesn't believe Rittenhouse acted in self defence

That seems to be the case, he's made similar statements that lead to that conclusion too, it's just that when questioned on it he won't answer - you just see him going into deflection/avoidance mode.

 

[dowie]

Seriously WTF?
What kind of nonsense question is this? "assuming we take you argument out of the equation, what is your argument?" Just lol.

That IS my argument. Again, you are incapable of or just refusing to follow the point I'm making.

Eh? You were literally asked that, why didn't you just answer clearly? And yes it is rather hard to follow the point you're making when you won't answer basic questions but instead resort to deflection. I literally asked you back up here, look at your response to that...

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35247428/

If your only objection re: the use of force is that he should have run a bit further then why not just make that clear - you believe everything else is reasonable just that in your mind he could have kept running.

"thats a reach" / "thats dubious". That's essentially the crux of your responses.

The forensics back up that he got his hand at least near the barrel as it was fired (due to the soot). That is all. There is no proof he actually did touch the barrel.

Well, it is a reach... but either way the claim re: the "only fact" is still flase even if we assume your interpretation to be true.

 

[dowie]

Reports now that MSNBC or someone working on their behalf tried to follow a bus carrying jurors, ran a red light in the process and was stopped & ticketed by police. Judge not too happy again so has banned MSNBC from the courtroom:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461390070481666053

This is just more stuff for the defence to use in a potential appeal/petition for a mistrial etc..

How do the countless scuffles/chases/fights that break out everywhere, all of the time not end in someone getting shot or killed then?

Almost every Friday and Saturday night there are countless altercations and threats thrown about all over bars/clubs in big cities etc but 99.99% wont end in someone being killed.

This is because even in the heat of the moment, people cant still act reasonably and with restraint so as not to use deadly force. Kyle is the exception here, not other people.

I thought your argument was just about him not fleeing enough?

Do you not get that if you're armed things are a bit different, he's tried to flee, he's pointed his rifle (which he's legally allowed to carry)... if someone then goes for him in spite of that and/or is able to get at his rifle then it's potentially game over for him ergo it's self-defence.

That a fistfight won't end in someone being killed normally is missing the point completely, most fistfights don't involve people carrying firearms... if you attack someone who has a firearm they might well resort to using it. It would be reasonable for them to try and extract themselves (as he did in this instance) it would be reasonable for them to give a warning (as he also did in this instance via pointing and not shooting) but if you catch up with them and shout **** you and dive for them/grab their rifle then...

 

[dowie]

They completely are.

LOL wat?? Do these fights in clubs often involve firearms?

 

[dowie]

Once AGAIN, you have weighed in and totally not understood what I've said or why i responded in that way.

Then just provide clarification, it's not rocket science. You seem to be making some rather silly point about fistfights in clubs that is of little relevance, the poster you were engaging with doesn't seem to see the relevance either and has potined it out too so it's hardly just me.

This is why you often end up ensnaring people into totally tedious and long winded nonsense (or "dowie hole" as its called around these parts).

LOL but in this case it's more like "deflection Jono" striking again than any "dowie hole", you're unable to simply answer straight questions or address criticism, you just deflect or go into attack the poster mode. You might want to dismiss criticism as a "dowie hole" in SC if it's me responding to multiple people but in this instance, it certainly isn't, plenty of people are objecting to your arguments and the issue isn't me replying it's you simply avoiding the criticism.

Why not just stick to the topic of the thread and just answer, either of us can call names or throw around ad hominems etc.. it's not too constructive - you think a fist fight comparison is relevant why exactly?

 

[dowie]

Do you really need an AR-15 to extinguish a fire?

Should we ask all the fire(wo)men who regularly extinguish fires if they needed a rifle to do that job?

No one has claimed he needed an AR-15 to extinguish a fire, he's only claimed he needed the AR-15 for self-defence and that he'd rather have had a pistol. You're addressing a non-argument.

 

[dowie]

You clearly do not have the cognition to understand the point being made then.

Then provide clarification on it... posting all these nonreplies of "you don't understand" to people doesn't add anything, it just deflects (again). Make the argument... explain it to people like they're 5 if you like... it's better than going round and round and round keeping to vague points/assertions that seem to have obvious flaws to them.

Stuff that might seem obvious to you in your head, isn't always apparent to everyone else, if people aren't clear where you're going with an argument then just provide clarification instead of this repeated song and dance you perform almost every time.

 

[dowie]

I then gave an example of how countless people find themselves in these situations (being chased,threatened, perhaps pushed, punched or kicked) and don't end up killing someone/using deadly force 99.99% of the time. They dont "ask for a timeout then resume once they have done their risk assessment" do they? No, they also make decisions in the heat of the moment, but almost all of the time it is NOT to kill the other person.

Yes... and then it's pointed out that people having fights in clubs aren't usually carrying guns - do you not see why pointing out that a regular fist gith would tend not to result in death whereas attacking someone armed likely will do, especially if you carry on trying to attack them after they've retreated. It's rather inane to point out that fights in clubs don't tend to result in deaths, they're fist fights!

On the other hand, riots do sometimes result in deaths, it's not that uncommon, there were several deaths already in that summer's rioting by the time this incident occurred.

But my argument is that i do not think slowing, turning and shooting Rosenbaum was his only option/last resort at that time. There were other routes other than the parked cars (ie to the right of him), and i also don't believe the parked cars were that "tightly" parked to stop him moving through them from how we see him moving through them afterwards.

If he was genuinely cornered, I would probably look differently on the situation.

I think this argument is somewhat moot as he's not actually obliged to carry on running. An argument based on this idea you have that he could have carried on running even further after already having made an effort to retreat isn't a very good argument against his right to self-defence.

 

[dowie]

This tired trope comes out time and time again with police shootings.

You shoot until the threat is neutralised. That's the intent "to neutralise the threat to yourself or another"

I'm surprised we've not had the old "why didn't he shoot him in the leg" line to add to all the other flawed arguments like that.

 

[dowie]

Which is besides the overarching point i was making. If you assume every attack is an attack to seriously injure you/kill you, why does everyone not resort to deadly force (even using their hands/whatever they can find around them)?

No one made that assumption though!

I do note that someone having a gun changes the dynamic somewhat.

It changes it massively, it's not some arsy drunk guy in a bar, it's a rioter who already knows you're open carrying a firearm and is attacking/chasing in spite of that - the threat is entirely different ergo the reference to bar fights is silly.

Do you get that a burglar shoving you when caught by surprise in your own home might warrant being hit quite hard with the bat you brought downstairs or stabbed with a screwdriver etc.. regardless of the fact they "only" shoved you. Ignoring context is silly - no you don't generally get to kill someone in a regular bar fight and no one has argued that you do, if you're legally open carrying a firearm and someone still tries to chase you down and attack you in spite of that... in a riot then yeah you might well be able to justify it, just as you could justify killing a burglar who only shoved you etc..

However, i don't think the simple act of having a gun reduces the excuse to use deadly force to such a level that its the first thing you do as soon as you are threatened. That would mean anyone could kill someone if they perceived them to be approaching them in an aggressive manner "i thought they were going to take my gun and execute me your honour!". It isn't reasonable.

No it doesn't mean that and again no one has argued that at all. Also note this wasn't the first thing done when he was threatened, you're being silly here as you know full well the first thing he did when threatened was to try and flee, and the next thing he did was to turn around and point the gun/brandish it, not shoot, and carry on trying to flee.

I also acknowledge Kyle's situation was more threatening than the rather flippant example above, but I still don't think it rose to the point where he was reasonable in shooting him four times until he was dead, at that point in time.

I really don't know why this is seen as such a strange take.

It's not that it's strange it's that you don't seem to be able to explain why. Why didn't it rise to the point where it was reasonable? You've made comparisons to bar fights, now some flippant comparison why not just explain your argument re: this case? Adding in a deliberately flippant comparison doesn't illustrate anything.

 

[dowie]

Oh yea so flawed.

"The bullets perforated Rosenbaum's heart, aorta, pulmonary artery and right lung"

"No intention to kill"

LOL FML you've actually gone for a variant of "why didn't he shoot him in the leg" (in reverse) in reply to a post mentioning that fallacy...

 

[dowie]

Are you implying the prosecutors also have not explained why?

I've not implied anything about the prosecutors... are you deflecting yet again? Why are you unable to articulate any sort of argument here. It's all assertions and analogies then straight into deflection/avoidance when asked why...

 

[dowie]

What is the possible and probbale outcome of arming yourself as a civilian and proceeding to attempt to stop a riot in another town?


My view is that almost certainly a rioters will attack me and try to take my weapon.


With a gun it then becomes likely you have to kill them before they use your weapon to kill you.


So by a quick minutes reasoning traveling to the riot to act as a lone vigilante will probbaly end in death or injury.


Is that a reasonable train of thought?


Or is anyone thinking that a different outcome was likely or that this outcome was completely unexpected and unpredictable?

Well you're starting with a false premise, he didn't try to stop a riot and there were plenty of people like him present who weren't attacked or killed.

 

[dowie]

Well you must be , because on many occasions i have said i agree with the prosecutors on various points (and i do generally, for the most part) so you must think that they have not explained why they think he is guilty either.

I'm aware you've said you agree with the prosecutors thanks, keeping it vague again there. You still haven't addressed the direct question, you're deflecting again...

 

[dowie]

He unloaded 4 bullets into his chest including one through his heart.

"no intention to kill offficer honest"

lmao

He should have shot him in the leg right?

 

[dowie]

He was there acting as a vigilante?

As he stated on video, although he does lie and claim he is employed as such?

Correct?

Come on, don't be credulous here, there are multiple witnesses to the fact the owners asked them to be there and some obvious liability issues (and some security issues) re: why those owners will actively deny that now - despite being pictured with them, allegedly giving them the keys, access to a ladder from inside the business, driving in a car with them to the location etc..

He's stated quite clearly the rifle was for self-defence and he's only used it for that, protecting the business by being present there and putting out fires is a legitemate activity. Most protestors were fine with him wandering around shouting "medic" and "friendly" etc...