Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[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.

 

[dowie]

It seems like some of the "prosecution" witnesses might as well be defence witnesses:

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.”

https://www.insider.com/kyle-rittenhouse-witness-says-joseph-rosenbaum-lunged-for-teens-gun-2021-11

Demonstrating what he saw, McGinniss crouched down, then charged forward and extended his hands outwards and slightly downwards in a grabbing motion.

"It was very clear to me that he was reaching specifically for the weapon, because that's where his hands went," McGinniss said. "The rifle was lower than where [Rosenbaum's] hands were, so [Rosenbaum's] hands were going down… Kyle Rittenhouse dodged around it, and then leveled the weapon, and fired."

 

[dowie]

Trying to find some short clips of the above, the text description doesn't really give full context, it's quite amusing, not embedding as it contains a swear word:

https://rumble.com/voq8lr-witness-g...use-trial-prosecutor.html?mref=23gga&mc=8uxj1

also this short clip, the prosecutor tries asking about how far back he was from Rosenbaum and he again mentions the point where Rosenbaum tries to grab Rittenhouse's rifle:

https://rumble.com/voq0jh-prosecuto...t-destroys-their-case.html?mref=23gga&mrefc=2

Not looking too promising for 1st-degree homicide for this first instance at least.

 

[dowie]

Clear case of self defense, it's insane how this has gone to trial

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457774701673996298

I mean we all saw the video... was pretty clear but also quite amusing to see him admit to it in court.

IIRC he also expressed regret to a friend that he hadn't shot Kyle, surely must be a pretty clear case of self-defence for that shooting too.

I guess that leaves the case of the skateboard guy.

I wonder if they will still try to get some sort of "reckless homicide" charge to stick even if first degree homicide doesn't work out.

LOL @ the prosecutors' reaction to that witness just outright confirming he wasn't shot until he pointed his firearm at Kyle first:

 

[dowie]

Funny how some of the US media covers this - NPR provides a whole story about his coverage without once mentioning that he aimed at Rittenhouse and it was only then that he was shot...

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha

And you wonder why there are still people on social media coming out with; something something crossing state lines with an assault rifle something something etc..

Realtiy is these days that unless you read multiple sources the media, even including npr, can be rather biased and leave out pretty key bits of information.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[dowie]

If someone walks away from you a bit with a rifle, would you just automatically assume you are safe?

Not completely but you're also not in imminent danger - you seem to forget that he wasn't walking away he was running away towards the police.

If someone is running away from you with a rifle do you think you'd be safer - running the other way? Staying put? Or chasing them down and trying to attack them or tackle them?

Note he wasn't shooting at anyone nor giving any indication that he intended too.

Someone walking away from you with a rifle is meaningless. What if he was just getting some range between himself and the people pursuing so he can get a better shot without getting apprehended himself ? I'm not saying this was Kyle's intention, but this is my argument about perception. How did the people in the vicinity know what he was thinking?

It's getting a bit silly now tbh.. with your what-ifs but more to the point what is the relevance of this argument about perception?

Pursuing him was still a self defense option. In fact I would say in the heat of the moment, actively pursuing and trying to disarm the rifle carrier could be perceived as the safest option.

That's a huge reach... comical even.

The trained medic who decided to not bother administering medical help to the first attacker, who could have simply stayed there but instead tried to chase Kyle down was acting in self-defence... by putting himself in more danger?

The hilarious and transparent double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilatism exhibited by many in this thread has just amused me.

The problem is you've avoided highlighting any, your argument here is reliant on vague claims and assumed equivalencies then when pressed for specifics you simply avoid/deflect.

 

[dowie]

Well if that is your take, yours and everyone else in this threads entire viewpoint on this is based on vague claims and a whole host of assumptions as well..

If you think something I've said is vague then feel free to ask for clarification - unlike you, I'll be happy to provide it.

As we were not privy to what was happening in these people's minds at the time, and we dont have full footage of everything that went on, you are **** in the wind as much as anyone else in regard to what actually happened and who was acting in self defense and who wasn't.

I'm not so sure about that, I suspect you've not read/watched much about the case given some of your earlier claims. You didn't appear to understand what one of the charges related to even given your vague argument relating to why it should still apply.

[throwing in more ad hominems to deflect from addressing anything]

If you can't address the criticisms then that's on you, yet again you deflect from the topic at hand.

 

[dowie]

There is nothing to address. I have addressed it all already quite clearly. If you dont understand it, that's on you.

And there we have it, another cop-out by Jono in favour of posturing and keeping things vague.

 

[dowie]

Nothing i have said has been vague. Ive made my opinion explicitly clear: Many of you (including yourself) have blindingly obvious double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilantism in this thread. I would suggest that you try and imagine what it might have been like for those who were not Kyle.

OK. Where? You say you’re not being vague but I’m still not sure what you’re referring to. Can you give a clear/specific example of the “blindingly obvious” double standard you perceive I have? Which posts or comments are you referring to?

 

[dowie]

Ive already done so countless times in this thread. Go back and read it instead of jumping in part way and asking to be spoon fed.

What a surprise you can’t answer so you just deflect again. This is why you keep things vague.

 

[dowie]

Better than demanding someone just repeat themselves when its all written down a few pages back.

Again, it isn't my problem if you can't be bothered to follow it.

More deflection, you made a claim I asked you for a specific example, this poster called it:

You won't get an answer

 

[dowie]

Incorrect. This is Dowie 101.

Can't address the points made adequately. Claim everything is vague. Then ask the poster to repeat themselves.

Standard.

OK, what point have I failed to address then? Go ahead and highlight it.

I’ve been proactively asking you to clarify your vague claims. I’ve asked you for a specific example of where I’ve shown a double standard. When it gets down to any specifics you just avoid and deflect. I’ve done the opposite, I’ve asked that you point out anything that isn’t clear and offered to clarify.

 

[dowie]

Kyle had a right to defend himself, whether the others perceived him to be an "active shooter" is irrelevant, it doesn't nullify his right to self defence.

Indeed! He seems to miss that, I pointed out that perhaps the skateboarder was trying to arrest/apprehend. It’s a bit moot as he’s dead/not on trial. Kyle is on trial here not them.