Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
You could say the same thing about the people he killed and injured too though, in fact morally they were in an even more dubious position - he was at least there apparently at the invitation of the owner of the properties attacked that night and on previous nights, they were there to cause arson and destruction and they attacked him, one of them brought a firearm along too.
He's got at least as much right as any protestor or rioter/arsonists (as at that hour lets be realistic that's mostly the people left from the protests) to be there.
I think by UK standards of course it is manslaughter, by US standards with gun culture being normalised and something you can carry openly then... not sure - it's political now, they might get a lesser charge to stick (just a lottery with the jury perhaps), I suspect that without all the publicity/national attention on it they might not have even made those charges or would be looking to withdraw them and just go with the weapons misdemeanor.
OK but using the exact same logic - third guy shot was holding a handgun - being there with a handgun like that though, just asking for trouble....
Had handgun man not been there then he'd not have felt so emboldened and his arm would still be intact (incidentally handgun man is a member of two far left groups and its not much of a stretch to suppose he was not just there after curfew for peaceful protesting!)
The other two were seen in the video of the confrontation after he used a fire extinguisher to put out the bin fire - that is what caused the initial chasing of him and attempts to attack him...
so you can use the same sort of argument, getting involved with arson is asking for trouble, as is kicking off at armed men on a petrol station forecourt once your arson attempt is interrupted - both the convicted paedophile (with multiple instances of violence in prison) who is seen trying to pick a fight with any of the militia guys + the skateboard guy who is also in that confrontation of the forecourt before anyone is shot (and who also is a convicted felon with a history of violence) were "just asking for trouble" with their actions too.
Given they were there for violence and destruction and the kid was there to try and stop it.. which is backed up by both his statements and actions - he administered first aid, he put out a fire.... he was chased and attacked first by everyone he shot at... as much as I think armed militia and some LARPing kid are ridiculous on the streets of a demoncratic country, given the US gun culture I'd say the kid had more right to be there than them and had the moral high ground.
Ultimately had the people in charge at a state and local level not left a power vacuum and allowed this property destruction to occur over 2 nights beforehand then this could have been prevented. I won't go into the incident that sparked this particular bit of rioting in Kenosha too as that is for another thread if anyone chooses to create one but judging by how other similar threads have turned out with people unable to exchange views on matters like that it's not worth it IMO. This thread is feasible as there is less cultural baggage and so the incident itself can be discussed.
The skateboard guy was also not from the same state, he was from the same state as Kyle.
The guy with the handgun was from the same state but a different metropoltian area and lives further away than Kyle.
Only the 5'3" paedophile who initially attacked him is actually from the town.
You'll probably find that a lot of the rioters weren't from that town.
Below is a map - the highlighted bit is the county Kyle lives in, the bit just above it is Kenosha, the town in question.... it's in a different state but is actually counted as part of the Chicago metropolitan area just as Kyle's hometown is so at some points you can cross the street and you're in Kyle's county and vice versa.
So what you've essentially highlighted there is pretty irrelevant - it is like saying someone in a riot in Manchester "wasn't even from the same city" because they live in Salford... even though it is in the same metropolitan area. It is bordering on dishonest as can be taken to imply they have no connection and they've perhaps come from some distance away.
In reality he lives in the same general metropolitan area and (more relevant) he works in the town as a lifeguard, he hung around after work clearing graffitti and he obtained a rifle and answered a call for volunteers apparently from the local business owner who runs the car lot + mechanic shops. He brought along his med pack (presumably from his job as a lifeguard). It's not that much of a stretch that someone working as a lifeguard and who has volunteered as some sort of police cadet might do that... (yes though it is nuts that he's armed like that but it is 'merica)
No but you apply some critical thinking... if the lawyers are going to claim he works at a local pool as a lifeguard and was working there that day then that's a fact that is easily checked and verified by the investigators/prosecutors... ergo if you've got something like that from the horses mouth so to speak then it's likely true.
If it wasn't true then you'd soon find someone from the local pool being interviewed by journalists saying "WTF we've never even seen this kid before"..
It's worth looking at a variety of sources critically for this sort of story as even mainstream sources can spin a narrative or leave out important details - if you'd watched say the Stephen Colbert show for example you might be left with the impression that this kid turned up and just randomly shot at a crowd of protestors etc.. and if you left it at that and ignored all other stories about it then you'd perhaps be dismayed in coming months if/when the trial ends up with him pleading to a lesser charge or charges get dropped or he gets found not guilty etc..
.
No, the CHAS/CHOP thing mentioned was in Seattle, there were deaths and armed protestors there too, there have been several deaths across the US.
I know this is asked of the other poster - I'm hoping any Trump chat stays in the Trump thread but hopefully this can be a non controversial point as it is mostly just pointing out who has control/highlighting what has happened - to some extent you've perhaps got a higher portion of people perhaps willing to engage in this sort of thing (certainly in Portland), but perhaps more improtantlysimply because there is plenty of direct political control of policing at the local and state level in the US so responses can vary depending on who is running things. The right/left thing doesn't completely translate - while some moderate dems could well be moderate Tories or Blairite Labour over here there are also various democratic socialists who are pretty far left, including say the council woman who joined and encouraged protestors in Seattle. - For example when CHAZ/CHOP started the Seattle Mayor took a very hands off apporach and allowed it to spread, peopel flocked to the area - in the end several blocks of the city had been taken over, local businesses shaken down for protection money or vandalised, several shooting events, people killed by armed CHAZ security (antifa types) and it took ages for them to finally order the police to shut it down - perhaps because they later targted the Mayor's house. Ditto to Kenosha, the local authorities requested 2000 national guard troops, after 2 nights of rioting/property destruction - the state Governor turned them down and only supplied a couple of hundred... so this ad hoc "militia" stepped in instead answering the call of a local business owner apparently and resulting in the shootings.
Now last night in Portland after weeks of violence a bunch of Trump supporters seems to have had a little "protest" of their own driving a convoy of cars through and shooting people with paintball guns etc.. one of them has now been shot dead by an antifa person. In the case of Portland this is where Trump/the Feds tried to stretch things as far as possible and allow federal authorities to protect the federal court which has been under attack for several nights by BLM/antifa (which, because it is federal property, they have jurisdiction to do) of course if they can only arrest people around there and not crack down on the wider protest they just act as a magnet for protestors... the local authorities didn't like this and an agreement made to get state police in instead... but the local prosecutor (this is a political appointment too) decided to drop the charges for most of the people arrested... which caused the state police to claim they couldn't therefore do their jobs and hand over to the overstretched local police... for example the Mayor had an antifa sit in in his apartment block lobby (ironically one of the people occupying his lobby was someone arrested and released for rioting not long before) , the security called the police and didn't get a response for hours! Bascially at a local level some places have been very hands off and it has lead to a breakdown of law and order... thus it can play favourably for someone like Trump who might well be hoping to emulate Nixon's success at this point.
I suspect there is a fair bit of pressure on the FBI to step up an investigation into some of these antifa and more militant BLM groups in addition to the armed right wing militia types. IIRC they were rumoured to be making use of the DEA (since they have large numbers of low level street informants etc..). Certainly various federal agencies have been involved in the more visible aspects of dealing with this - like federal prison riot officers being called into DC or border patrol officers being called in to assist federal protection officers at the fed's court house in Portland.
IIRC the FBI don't tend to act unless they have a very rock solid case - ergo you get arrested by them and end up in federal court you're ****ed or you'd best end up taking a plea deal if offered... they win some ridiculously high number of the cases that eventually get prosecuted.
I do wonder if this perhaps means they'd be reluctant to rush any such investigation - this sort of thing would take time - no doubt the administration would like some results pre-election but might well find any possible antifa leader arrests happening post-election.
IIRC the FBI don't tend to act unless they have a very rock solid case - ergo you get arrested by them and end up in federal court you're ****ed or you'd best end up taking a plea deal if offered... they win some ridiculously high number of the cases that eventually get prosecuted.
I do wonder if this perhaps means they'd be reluctant to rush any such investigation - this sort of thing would take time - no doubt the administration would like some results pre-election but might well find any possible antifa leader arrests happening post-election.
One of them is supposed to be his sister or something... it's got little relevance to the shooting event itself other than to show he's a little ****. We could probably guess that already re: him wanting to LARP as some cop/"militia" guy in the first place.
Given the people shot were a paedophile a domestic abuser and a far left militant bloke who also turned up with a firearm then in terms of the biggest **** competition even this chubby little LARPing cop-wannabe who has also hit a girl has still managed to be less of a **** than the guys he shot.
Given the people shot were a paedophile a domestic abuser and a far left militant bloke who also turned up with a firearm then in terms of the biggest **** competition even this chubby little LARPing cop-wannabe who has also hit a girl has still managed to be less of a **** than the guys he shot.
He didn't apparently, if you look at the details he was in the town already, he works there as a lifeguard, has family there and lives 30mins away in the same general metropolitan area.
He was there with some group of gun nuts/militia types at the invitation of (allegedly) of the local business owner who owned the car lot and two mechanic shops... he wasn't there to confront the protestors, he was there as a "medic" and apparently treated some of them... rifle there for self defence.
What seems to have happened is he later put out a bin fire, which caused a bunch of protestors to kick off at the militia guys on a petrol station forecourt, (including at least two of the people he later shot). This may be where the possible brandishing allegation @Jono8 has mentioned happened, not sure there is any footage of that though.
Either way he still got chased/pursued and tried to retreat which does seem to be pretty fundamental as far as claiming self defence regardless of any other illegality whether that be a weapons charge or the less clear brandishing issue - especially if that brandishing issue came after the agitation following the bin fire or indeed if it becomes something the protestor witnesses start sticking with and the militia witnesses deny etc...
I think an important witness will be the journalist who witnessed (and was right behind) the first guy being shot, that plus the tapes will be fundamental here.
If he'd wanted to do that then surely he'd not actively try to run away and/or only shoot people who attacked him. Likewise why provide first aid and casuallly chat to/act friendly towards people... there seem to be various clips of militia types actively saying to the protestors that they have no beef with them just don't attack local businesses, go attack the police etc.. (presumably these gun nut/militia types are mostly libertarians etc..). Even the third guy who runs up to him he doesn't initially shoot despite the third guy being armed too, they both pause and it's only when he then makes a move that the kid shoots him, hitting his arm.
It's not surprising, some of the reporting on this stuff has been pure trash/partisan stuff with details deliberately missing etc..... seems like good journalism in the US is mostly found in local papers not national media whether print or TV. (edit - actually to be fair to them, the New York Times did give a good breakdown of the video clips)
Otherwise intelligent, decent shows have been dissapointing - Stephen Colbert for example portrayed the event as the kid just firing into a crowd of protestors...
That's the thing, I doubt that Trump can designate BLM or Antifa terrorists organisations - they're kind of movements etc.. too. Antifa is loosely organised... whether you want to call black block people antifa or anarchists various of them could identify as either and also be in support of BLM too. On ther other hand BLM has specific organisations which campaign, fundraise etc.. there is nothing to necessarily link those organisations with violence...
I don’t think it’s obvious at all that all charges will fail to stick. Also it seems obvious to say that on one hand he’s acted in self defence and on the other hand he’s been reckless.
The lawyer video needs to be watched with some skepticism too, Fox News is as bad at questioning that narrative as other media etc.. has been at questioning the views of people claiming this kid is some white supremacist or random mass shooter etc...
Firstly re: not arresting the handgun guy it can be true that both the kid had he were both legally covered re: their actions with firearms. Ergo that he’s not been charged is a bit meh... of course prosecutors are political there but I suspect he has a decent legal argument for his actions.
Having said that the cultural criticism from polarised people gets a bit inconsistent, Kyle shouldn’t have been there etc... well yes, it’s nuts, neither should the handgun guy, he’s another lunatic out with a firearm at night and he’s arguably there for rather more antisocial purposes!
I’d leave open that Kyle might go down for manslaughter but realistically I can’t see how they won’t be able to throw in plenty of “reasonable doubt” when it comes to these homicide charges... and given the prominence of the case they’ll have multiple attempts, even if by some chance they can’t convince a jury it will no doubt go to appeal.
The weapons charge seems a bit different - note the lawyer doesn’t give much detail there (and of course in good old polarised US TV News style the host, Tucker, just plays dumb), seems like the main defence could be a bit of a reach - i.e. something about him being 16-18 and with an adult etc... But they have a second approach, lawyer sounds like he’s going to go hard on the 2nd amendment somehow, already painting this as facing armed insurrection, god given right to self defence etc.. Potentially plenty of interest there from gun lobby etc... Bit that also seems like the charge most likely to stick out of the current ones.
The lawyer video needs to be watched with some skepticism too, Fox News is as bad at questioning that narrative as other media etc.. has been at questioning the views of people claiming this kid is some white supremacist or random mass shooter etc...
Firstly re: not arresting the handgun guy it can be true that both the kid had he were both legally covered re: their actions with firearms. Ergo that he’s not been charged is a bit meh... of course prosecutors are political there but I suspect he has a decent legal argument for his actions.
Having said that the cultural criticism from polarised people gets a bit inconsistent, Kyle shouldn’t have been there etc... well yes, it’s nuts, neither should the handgun guy, he’s another lunatic out with a firearm at night and he’s arguably there for rather more antisocial purposes!
I’d leave open that Kyle might go down for manslaughter but realistically I can’t see how they won’t be able to throw in plenty of “reasonable doubt” when it comes to these homicide charges... and given the prominence of the case they’ll have multiple attempts, even if by some chance they can’t convince a jury it will no doubt go to appeal.
The weapons charge seems a bit different - note the lawyer doesn’t give much detail there (and of course in good old polarised US TV News style the host, Tucker, just plays dumb), seems like the main defence could be a bit of a reach - i.e. something about him being 16-18 and with an adult etc... But they have a second approach, lawyer sounds like he’s going to go hard on the 2nd amendment somehow, already painting this as facing armed insurrection, god given right to self defence etc.. Potentially plenty of interest there from gun lobby etc... Bit that also seems like the charge most likely to stick out of the current ones.
How do you mean?
Defending him as in pointing out he’s acted in self defence?
I’m not sure what difference the country you live in needs make re: discussing the facts of this case or opinions on what might or should happened.
That’s not all that ridiculous, the conflicting incentives re: local and national politics are obvious. Would be better to discuss in the Trump thread etc.. this thread is supposed to be about the incident itself.
Eh??? What are you on about? You haven’t addressed the point made. Not have you clarified anything re: what you’re referring to re: defending him?
Well you’ve merely made an assertion, if you’d like to attempt an argument then post one in the Trump thread.
That isn’t the argument. We all know none of those people should have been there, fact is they were.
That they shouldn’t have been there doesn’t negate that one of the people who shouldn’t have been there shooting another person who shouldn’t have been there was self defence.
Yes, setting fire to things is wrong, being a vigilante is wrong etc...
If you’re going to argue that point then you need to actually address it not skirt around it by pointing out things that are also bad etc...
Dowie is No. 28
Welcome to No. 28
So you have no argument then?
I’ve addresses the points raised, you’re just talking past people and aren’t presenting an argument nor clarifying what issue you have with the self defence claim.
Well that’s false, I have argued that local and national incentives differ here and actions at a local level risk the election in the thread mentioned before. I’ve provided examples. If you’d like to present an argument or rebuttal yourself then go ahead... just making assertions here is pretty empty.
Yet you have no argument.. and didn’t rebutt it. You seem to be deliberately trying to trash this thread instead with inane replies... I’ll invite you again to post in the appropriate thread and put some thought into presenting an argument.