Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[Scort]

Interesting to know if any additional footage came out - iirc, there were two or three out at the time on 4chan (or some such site) - the first I recall seeing was the shooter apparently 'standing guard' outside a store of some sort; though the person filming was crossing a car park to get to where there was clearly an altercation happening. I don’t think you saw exactly what happened but there appeared to be some sort of scuffle and a bloke was shot – seemed to be a headwound when the camera panned down.

The next video showed the shooter running away, and I’m pretty sure he was stopping to shoot back to the direction he came from – whether aimed at people, or just warning shots, it wasn’t clear. The last video pretty much carried on from this, but showed the shooter either falling over, or being brought down, and a mob closing in to give him a shoeing no doubt - and as he rolled over his rifle came up and another shot was fired.

I don’t get why he felt the need to rock up and decide to be a militia of shorts, to guard businesses – it seems odd, but I guess people with guns have a huge boost to their self-belief that they are invincible or something, maybe untouchable, and not to be messed with. Wouldn’t be surprised if he was a bit brainwashed by something/someone, and saw it as his duty or something.

I’m not 100% on what happened after – I vaguely recall there being talk that he was simple ‘let by’ the Police lines, and allowed to just go home, and then hand himself in the next day.

But being a complete armchair bystander, with no clear understanding of the case (other than what I saw in these clips) or law, the guy looked guilty of manslaughter at the very least – “intentional homicide” I suppose.

 

[dowie]

Generalising a bit, is it a good thing he is being prosecuted as then he could not be prosecuted again? Double jeopardy and all that.

Not particularly, better to have prosecutors be non-political and have some standards re: which cases get brought to trial. This seems to be political + the bail that was set was ridiculous and I suspect set more for a bit of virtue signaling. In the US various prosecutors and judges are elected or are political appointees.

Getting locked up, then released only after some big fundraising effort etc.. then having to fund a stressful trial etc.. isn't a good thing at all. Also, double jeopardy doesn't apply too well in the US as they have an obvious loophole in that the Federal government and State governments are considered to be separate sovereigns so in highly political cases with lots of public outrage they can have another run at putting the perceived bad person behind bars. Lots of federal prosecutors have political ambitions too so even when not elected or political appointments political considerations are still an influence + their bosses are political.

This could have been dealt with by the US supreme court not too long ago but unfortunately wasn't.

Not uncommon in US towns lots of the people in power all know each other - in this case, the town is run by the democrats (in other towns you have the same issue but with Republicans), the Mayor dropped the ball a bit in terms of how to police the protests this shooting happened on the (IIRC) second day of protests after businesses were destroyed the night before and a business owner allegedly asked these militia people to protect his business.

The guys below are apparently all from the same family - the detective was the one who investigated Rittenhouse, he's the nephew of the Mayor, the city attorney (not the DA prosecuting) is his first cousin.





Other nephews include a state representative, a city judge (not the one actually on the bench in this trial) and a county board supervisor. The mayor seems quite keen to have Rittenhouse banged up for this, in part to distract from his own failings. Of course, this is the US not some 3rd world country so even despite having considerable influence it's still going to take some effort and a conviction on the more serious charges is far from certain. In terms of 2nd amendment rights, it is a big deal for many in the US and there are plenty of people who'd likely fund several appeals in the event it were to happen.

Haha its like the Derek Chauvin thread all over again.

Not particularly, this case isn't really like that at all save for the polarised ways it's being viewed in the US. With Chauvin I thought it was quite plausible he'd serve time for that incident, with this case I suspect the weapons charge is the main one he's at risk over whereas the first-degree reckless homicide charges seem very sus.

 

[Moley]

I’m not 100% on what happened after – I vaguely recall there being talk that he was simple ‘let by’ the Police lines, and allowed to just go home, and then hand himself in the next day.

Take a look at the video in post #572 - it answers a whole lot of this.

 

[Scort]

Take a look at the video in post #572 - it answers a whole lot of this.

Ta muchly

 

[Roar87]

I will be absolutely amazed if like Chauvin he isn't found guilty. I think the real lesson here is that sensible people don't walk the streets with riffles all the kid had to do was stay home and let the police do their jobs and he wouldn't have found himself in court instead he travelled a considerable distance and then got tooled up for some vigilante action as per the old saying if you play with fire......

I mean he went there also as a medic offering to help people, he tried to stop looters and vandals, and then he ran away from people who began attacking him until forced to defend himself. I guess you see what you want to see though. You're right he could have stayed home and I know most people in here would, a lot are the type who stand around waiting for other people to do something when a bad thing happens.

 

[dowie]

Interesting to know if any additional footage came out[...]
I’m not 100% on what happened after – I vaguely recall there being talk that he was simple ‘let by’ the Police lines, and allowed to just go home, and then hand himself in the next day.

But being a complete armchair bystander, with no clear understanding of the case (other than what I saw in these clips) or law, the guy looked guilty of manslaughter at the very least – “intentional homicide” I suppose.

Well firstly I'd suggest looking up the NYT video or indeed watching the video embedded in the post below, it lays out the time line quite nicely and was created later than the NYT video so has a bit more on the first shooter (who has since been arrested and is also facing charges) who fired a pistol behind as Rittenhouse was trying to escape his attacker, Rosenbaum.

Also I saw the NYT video a while back which had a good summary, I was aware there was someone else who fired the first shots but there is some more detail now, I hadn't kept up to date on this case but this video has a good breakdown on the timeline of events and is worth a watch:

The guy who fired first (Joshua Ziminski) as Rittenhouse is being chased has also been arrested and charged for discharging a weapon, the youtube video even shows footage of him pointing to Rittenhouse before the incident.

Secondly (disclaimer, right-wing source) some FBI drone footage gives an overhead view, you can see the first shooter & his wife pointing at Rittenhouse prior to discharging his weapon as Rittenhouse runs away, can clearly see Rosenbaum chasing him... gives a fairly strong self-defence argument tbh...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1455579165739167752

 

[Dem2k]

It's not illegal in some states to carry a firearm. Apparently it's more legal to carry a huge rifle around and less dangerous then a concealed firearm. It's a bit mad really the only people I wouldn't feel too apprehensive about openly carrying are police and the soldiers in full dress. Even then it would still make me uneasy unless its at an area where you would expect that level of security, such as airports etc.

No clue about how this will go. I mean he was attacked, yes you could point out he carelessly put himself into this situation but who the heck physically assaults someone with loaded AR-15 expecting the outcome to be good is just as unhinged in behaviour

 

[hurfdurf]

I haven’t really followed this case, but fair warning.

A lot of posters in this thread were in the George Floyd thread giving it the big I am claiming to know everything and how things would go, only to then look very silly when it all came apart and the exact opposite of what they were saying turned out to be true over and over again . So take the regular GD “experts” with a pinch of salt, I see they didn’t learn their lessons.

 

[Moley]

I mean he went there also as a medic offering to help people, he tried to stop looters and vandals, and then he ran away from people who began attacking him until forced to defend himself.

Not defending yourself when attacked is a good way to get seriously hurt or killed. Back in 1987 I was attacked by a Junkie who was trying to rob me. Thing is, it was someone I knew from school (we left the summer previous) and I couldn't believe it was happening and froze. He was strangling me and if another kid hadn't kicked him in the head I would have been dead. This isn't just hyperbole - when we reported it to the police it turned out he had murdered a guy in a park the day before by strangulation when robbing him.

I've learned from that incident and I don't freeze anymore. If I see something bad about to happen I run (like Rittenhouse did) and if that's not an option I strike first and hard - you don't want to take any chances with your safety against an assailant who is threatening you.

I would have done the same as Rittenhouse - including lowering my weapon when others put their hands up - and for that reason I wouldn't convict him if I was on the jury. But I have the benefit of experience to guide me, I wonder how many Jurors will have the same benefit....?

 

[Scort]

Well firstly I'd suggest looking up the NYT video or indeed watching the video embedded in the post below, it lays out the time line quite nicely and was created later than the NYT video so has a bit more on the first shooter (who has since been arrested and is also facing charges) who fired a pistol behind as Rittenhouse was trying to escape his attacker, Rosenbaum.

Thanks for the link - having a watch now, that Rosenbaum bloke had some serious 'little man' syndrome going on in the petrol station! I wasn't aware that there were also so many armed civvies out there too!!

Edit: blimey! That's a lot of new footage, and some really clear stuff too. I cannot see how anyone could argue that he murdered three people, it looks like self defence US style to me! I’m just glad I live in Blighty.

 

[Roar87]

I haven’t really followed this case, but fair warning.

A lot of posters in this thread were in the George Floyd thread giving it the big I am claiming to know everything and how things would go, only to then look very silly when it all came apart and the exact opposite of what they were saying turned out to be true over and over again . So take the regular GD “experts” with a pinch of salt, I see they didn’t learn their lessons.

Who was in that thread? Maybe you could be specific and bring up some quotes to back up your BS

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Never bring a skateboard to an AR-15 fight.

The state of the type of person who would push a wheely bin in flames into a petrol station. He was released from a mental facility that day though by all accounts.

This is what happens when the police stand back. People get crazy and things escalate.

 

[dowie]

Who was in that thread? Maybe you could be specific and bring up some quotes to back up your BS

I don't think nuance is really his thing, ditto to the other poster making a similar claim. It's more; bad man found guilty, other people said stuff outside of bad man bad therefore other people wrong... me no interested in specifics of what said.

Anyway, that's more for the other thread (IIRC a new one was started in SC).

Never bring a skateboard to an AR-15 fight.

The state of the type of person who would push a wheely bin in flames into a petrol station. He was released from a mental facility that day though by all accounts.

This is what happens when the police stand back. People get crazy and things escalate.

Indeed, this was ultimately a political failure - the desire to carry on with a stand off-ish approach with the backdrop of all the "defund the police" lunacy... a cordon around the main public building in town but no protection for local businesses even after one night of rioting, looting and arson... ergo a gap was left for armed "militia" people to step into.

Of course, after this event, lots of national guard were called upon.

 

[a1ex2001]

I mean he went there also as a medic offering to help people, he tried to stop looters and vandals, and then he ran away from people who began attacking him until forced to defend himself. I guess you see what you want to see though. You're right he could have stayed home and I know most people in here would, a lot are the type who stand around waiting for other people to do something when a bad thing happens.

As you say it is all about optics, you see a medic there to help people others see a vigilante with an assault riffle there to supress. I'm not sure what I see, the truth is probably as is so often the case somewhere in the grey area in the middle. I'm not convinced of his guilt or innocence I am however sure that had he stayed home he wouldn't be facing trial and potentially life in prison, he made an informed choice when he chose to go and when more so when he chose to carry and use a weapon and he will now be judged according to the law.

 

[deuse]

Not particularly, better to have prosecutors be non-political and have some standards re: which cases get brought to trial. This seems to be political + the bail that was set was ridiculous and I suspect set more for a bit of virtue signaling. In the US various prosecutors and judges are elected or are political appointees.

Getting locked up, then released only after some big fundraising effort etc.. then having to fund a stressful trial etc.. isn't a good thing at all. Also, double jeopardy doesn't apply too well in the US as they have an obvious loophole in that the Federal government and State governments are considered to be separate sovereigns so in highly political cases with lots of public outrage they can have another run at putting the perceived bad person behind bars. Lots of federal prosecutors have political ambitions too so even when not elected or political appointments political considerations are still an influence + their bosses are political.

This could have been dealt with by the US supreme court not too long ago but unfortunately wasn't.

Not uncommon in US towns lots of the people in power all know each other - in this case, the town is run by the democrats (in other towns you have the same issue but with Republicans), the Mayor dropped the ball a bit in terms of how to police the protests this shooting happened on the (IIRC) second day of protests after businesses were destroyed the night before and a business owner allegedly asked these militia people to protect his business.

The guys below are apparently all from the same family - the detective was the one who investigated Rittenhouse, he's the nephew of the Mayor, the city attorney (not the DA prosecuting) is his first cousin.





Other nephews include a state representative, a city judge (not the one actually on the bench in this trial) and a county board supervisor. The mayor seems quite keen to have Rittenhouse banged up for this, in part to distract from his own failings. Of course, this is the US not some 3rd world country so even despite having considerable influence it's still going to take some effort and a conviction on the more serious charges is far from certain. In terms of 2nd amendment rights, it is a big deal for many in the US and there are plenty of people who'd likely fund several appeals in the event it were to happen.



Not particularly, this case isn't really like that at all save for the polarised ways it's being viewed in the US. With Chauvin I thought it was quite plausible he'd serve time for that incident, with this case I suspect the weapons charge is the main one he's at risk over whereas the first-degree reckless homicide charges seem very sus.

Wisconsin have known police corruption for years.

 

[Werewolf]

Not particularly, better to have prosecutors be non-political and have some standards re: which cases get brought to trial. This seems to be political + the bail that was set was ridiculous and I suspect set more for a bit of virtue signaling. In the US various prosecutors and judges are elected or are political appointees.

Getting locked up, then released only after some big fundraising effort etc.. then having to fund a stressful trial etc.. isn't a good thing at all. Also, double jeopardy doesn't apply too well in the US as they have an obvious loophole in that the Federal government and State governments are considered to be separate sovereigns so in highly political cases with lots of public outrage they can have another run at putting the perceived bad person behind bars. Lots of federal prosecutors have political ambitions too so even when not elected or political appointments political considerations are still an influence + their bosses are political.

This could have been dealt with by the US supreme court not too long ago but unfortunately wasn't.

Not uncommon in US towns lots of the people in power all know each other - in this case, the town is run by the democrats (in other towns you have the same issue but with Republicans), the Mayor dropped the ball a bit in terms of how to police the protests this shooting happened on the (IIRC) second day of protests after businesses were destroyed the night before and a business owner allegedly asked these militia people to protect his business.

The guys below are apparently all from the same family - the detective was the one who investigated Rittenhouse, he's the nephew of the Mayor, the city attorney (not the DA prosecuting) is his first cousin.


.

There are two extremely good reasons for there to be a trial, well 4 if you count the normal reasons the CPS apply in the UK as well as the two dead guys...
In a trial you bring out all the evidence into the open, not snippets of video or what was reported in the press/by police alone.
If it's "political" it's because the US police have really screwed up massively, and repeatedly when people have been killed in "self defence" and people are generally fed up with that, especially how many of the police seemed to be turning an eye to violence by the likes of the proud boys.

The getting locked up after being charged is entirely normal for the US justice system, as is the huge bail amounts when you've got someone who went out with a gun and ended up killing people regardless of the what the defence claims happened, as in most societies if you've done that you're likely to be considered a higher risk to the public than say a shoplifter.
It's one of the things that has been highlighted for years by people calling for reforms (usually to be demonised by the likes of Fox news for "wanting criminals to be released"), the only unusual thing in this case is how much was raised easily by his supporters.
It's been one of the few "fun" things to come out of January 6th, watching the number of people that thought the justice system was great in the US (having never encountered it personally, having been accused of a crime thinking they're being penalised especially harshly and unfairly because they're being treated the same (or better*) as any other criminal, so getting the same prison cells, the same food, the same access to the outside world and visitation rights, and how long it's taking for them to be tried etc.


*Federal prisons tend to be far better than many of the local ones, and many seem to be getting given chances that wouldn't normally be given as the federal judges on the whole have been extremely lenient with the idiocy some of these guys have shown in how they've acted in regards to their arrests (one idiot gave a judges wife's number as his contact, several have not been where they said they would be but still allowed to remain out).

 

[Jono8]

Totally helpful and conclusive video.twitterlink

"Anybody need medical!?"

LMAO what a LARP.

 

[dowie]

There are two extremely good reasons for there to be a trial, well 4 if you count the normal reasons the CPS apply in the UK as well as the two dead guys...

Nope, that isn't necessarily a good reason to push ahead with 1st-degree homicide charges! The firearms charge, sure. We don't automatically carry on and go to trial in the UK simply because people have died (see cases where burglars have been killed etc..), the police will initially charge and interview under caution of course but that doesn't need to go any further - obvs people don't often carry loaded firearms, in public, in the UK though.

The getting locked up after being charged is entirely normal for the US justice system, as is the huge bail amounts when you've got someone who went out with a gun and ended up killing people

Nah that's dubious, there are people locked up and released on bail frequently in the US including for shooting-related incidents that fall short of murder - bail set at 2 million is unusual, 1st degree murder can typically be up to 1 million (or just denied) other felonies start at around 50k or so according to what I've seen so far. Note these aren't murder charges but homicide charges, they're supposed to take into account age, prior convictions/felonies, chance of reoffending etc..etc..

regardless of the what the defence claims happened

Nothing about what the defence claimed to have happened, as mentioned in court this isn't a who done it... the facts are pretty much established, the arguments are over whether it was a reasonable use of force etc.. +. some convoluted argument the defence will try re: the underage firearms charge.

 

[Efour]

I remember the old days when id look at the USA and think what a great country.
Now i look at the nutters in Iran burning the stars and stripes and think, maybe they have a small point, not much, but a hint of one

 

[Johno please?]

It's not illegal in some states to carry a firearm. Apparently it's more legal to carry a huge rifle around and less dangerous then a concealed firearm. It's a bit mad really the only people I wouldn't feel too apprehensive about openly carrying are police and the soldiers in full dress. Even then it would still make me uneasy unless its at an area where you would expect that level of security, such as airports etc.

No clue about how this will go. I mean he was attacked, yes you could point out he carelessly put himself into this situation but who the heck physically assaults someone with loaded AR-15 expecting the outcome to be good is just as unhinged in behaviour

They called his bluff "you wont do s*** mother*******" Well, they were wrong.

Defensive gun use happens all the time in the states. Its very hard for us Britains to understand, people here just go "oh hes got a gun and killed people so hes obviously the bad guy"

In this country we just get stabbed to death if there's some altercation with chavs, like these recent examples...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57309418
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-58818664