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.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
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.
Soldato
Yes because the the very bad governor who can't control his state.
Letting terrorists do as they please.
Soldato
I've two views, one directly concerning the actions he and the victims took and one more holistic view of the whole situation.
Self Defense definition - In US law the general wording is this "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death" - taken from Wikipedia. There are many variations so this is a generic definition.
1. Actions - All these actions are seen in multiple videos, anything which is still speculation (other shooters involved etc) I have ignored - After having a Molotov cocktail or similar incendiary device thrown at him by the first person he shot (who was still chasing him for 4 seconds after throwing the Molotov and 2 seconds after the first shot was fired), I think he is entitled under US law to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger (Video of first victim throwing Molotov). After ringing thepolice (edit - new report he rang his friend) post the first shooting he is then chased by a large group, 2 of which directly assault him (one with a kick to the head and one with a skateboard to the head). Again at that point I think that under US law he's entitled to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger. After shooting the attacker who had a "weapon" (the skateboard) but not the "unarmed" man who kicked him, he then shoots the last victim who approached him with his own pistol draw and roughly pointing at him so, again, I think that he is entitled under US law to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger (video of the crowd chase, the skateboard attack and the final two shootings).
Note that the only people he shot were those he could say in a court were directly threatening his life - Molotov thrower, skateboard to head guy and man armed with pistol - and that he didn't shoot any of the other people around him who were also carrying "weapons" such as wooden bats/poles etc as they were not attacking him and were therefore not a direct threat. After trying to hand himself in3 2 times (phone call post first shooting edit - new report he rang his friend, approaching Police post second shooting and phoning police once home), his actions potentially being classed as some level of self defence due to being attacked by 2 of the 3 victims and the over charging by the DA, I think he'll have a very good chance of being found Not Guilty of the two 1st Degree murders but he'll probably still be found guilty on some far lesser charges as a gesture of mob placation (hoping to avoid a flair up - it won't work) and he'll probably be spending, at worst, a few years in jail.
Lastly, regarding the actions of those who were shot - In each case their actions directly led to them being shot. They were not random "innocent bystanders" stood around who were mercilessly gunned down by some mad-eyed lunatic. Each one did something which directly caused their shooting to occur, either by directly using violence against the shooter (Molotov and Skateboard victims) or being a direct threat (Pistol) which made the active shooter consider them to be a direct threat to his life. Again, the only people shot were those directly threatening him, there were lots of people stood just 10 yards away with wooden batons who he didn't shoot because they were not directly threatening him. In simple terms, if someone has a gun, don't attack them and you'll live or alternatively attack them and you'll get shot - the fact that such a "common sense" phrase even has to be said is amazing but 'Murica I suppose.
2. Overview - He should never have been there in the first place but I think I can understand why he thought he should be even if I absolutely 100% disagree with the decision he made. There is a far bigger discussion to be had regarding why it's mainly Democrat run cities that are allowing these uncontrolled riots to continue for days on end but in this specific example, the chain of failures starts with the failure of local Police to contain the rioting, the failure of the Mayor to back up the Police during the rioting, the failure of the Governor to force the Mayor to back up the Police etc all of which is just inexcusable. With their lack of action they created a perfect storm of failure after failure, something which the shooter had been repeated across Democrat run cities for the last 100 days, and which directly led to the shooter, someone untrained, inexperienced and unrequested by law enforcement, thinking that he was exactly what the situation needed when "law enforcement" seemed incapable doing the job, and now people are dead because of this chain of failures.
I don't think he specifically went out to shoot people, I genuinely think he went there because he thought he could help keep things "peaceful" by being there because, as a 17 year old, he just isn't experienced enough in life to realise that regardless of how he saw himself, others would see him as an antagonist and therefore a target. The legality of his actions on the night can be debated back and forth but in my opinion he should never have been there to start with, even if I can understand why he thought it was a good idea to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I generally dislike threads like these. In my experience they usually just serve as a "meeting point" for two different ideologies to verbally spar, with neither side really caring about the actual event that much but being happy just to have a subject with which to fight each other, similar to the way hooligans use the pretence of a football match to organise fights and where "tribalism" (fighting for your side regardless) is seen as more important than remaining factual and being able to calmly and rationally discuss the event as I suspect will happen here.
Self Defense definition - In US law the general wording is this "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death" - taken from Wikipedia. There are many variations so this is a generic definition.
1. Actions - All these actions are seen in multiple videos, anything which is still speculation (other shooters involved etc) I have ignored - After having a Molotov cocktail or similar incendiary device thrown at him by the first person he shot (who was still chasing him for 4 seconds after throwing the Molotov and 2 seconds after the first shot was fired), I think he is entitled under US law to act in self defence as he thought his life was in danger (Video of first victim throwing Molotov). After ringing the
Note that the only people he shot were those he could say in a court were directly threatening his life - Molotov thrower, skateboard to head guy and man armed with pistol - and that he didn't shoot any of the other people around him who were also carrying "weapons" such as wooden bats/poles etc as they were not attacking him and were therefore not a direct threat. After trying to hand himself in
Lastly, regarding the actions of those who were shot - In each case their actions directly led to them being shot. They were not random "innocent bystanders" stood around who were mercilessly gunned down by some mad-eyed lunatic. Each one did something which directly caused their shooting to occur, either by directly using violence against the shooter (Molotov and Skateboard victims) or being a direct threat (Pistol) which made the active shooter consider them to be a direct threat to his life. Again, the only people shot were those directly threatening him, there were lots of people stood just 10 yards away with wooden batons who he didn't shoot because they were not directly threatening him. In simple terms, if someone has a gun, don't attack them and you'll live or alternatively attack them and you'll get shot - the fact that such a "common sense" phrase even has to be said is amazing but 'Murica I suppose.
2. Overview - He should never have been there in the first place but I think I can understand why he thought he should be even if I absolutely 100% disagree with the decision he made. There is a far bigger discussion to be had regarding why it's mainly Democrat run cities that are allowing these uncontrolled riots to continue for days on end but in this specific example, the chain of failures starts with the failure of local Police to contain the rioting, the failure of the Mayor to back up the Police during the rioting, the failure of the Governor to force the Mayor to back up the Police etc all of which is just inexcusable. With their lack of action they created a perfect storm of failure after failure, something which the shooter had been repeated across Democrat run cities for the last 100 days, and which directly led to the shooter, someone untrained, inexperienced and unrequested by law enforcement, thinking that he was exactly what the situation needed when "law enforcement" seemed incapable doing the job, and now people are dead because of this chain of failures.
I don't think he specifically went out to shoot people, I genuinely think he went there because he thought he could help keep things "peaceful" by being there because, as a 17 year old, he just isn't experienced enough in life to realise that regardless of how he saw himself, others would see him as an antagonist and therefore a target. The legality of his actions on the night can be debated back and forth but in my opinion he should never have been there to start with, even if I can understand why he thought it was a good idea to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I generally dislike threads like these. In my experience they usually just serve as a "meeting point" for two different ideologies to verbally spar, with neither side really caring about the actual event that much but being happy just to have a subject with which to fight each other, similar to the way hooligans use the pretence of a football match to organise fights and where "tribalism" (fighting for your side regardless) is seen as more important than remaining factual and being able to calmly and rationally discuss the event as I suspect will happen here.
Last edited:
Soldato
Agree, all the shots fired are to people that are within a few feet of him and all he 3 peoplem shot are on the front foot being aggressive towards him. The 3rd guy that's shot for example is only shot once he is identified as a threat (so to speak) literally 5 seconds before he's backing off whilst the kid has a clear shot that's not taken, it's only when he moves in aggressively that he is shot. Clear self defense, especially given the hundreds of video out there where we see packs of 'protesters' swarming individuals and doling out their 'justice', any decent lawyer should able to get the kid off.
I would hope that given this and other recent deaths at these protests/riots we might start to see some common sense prevail and a de-escalation of sorts unfortunately I think it will just go the other way.
Instead of thehow 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.
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.
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?
Blaming a gunshot sound for him killing multiple unarmed people is absurd and shows your bias.
Caporegime
Please stop with your logic and background checking.
It's not fair on the herp derp he shun't have been there its his fault crew.
Soldato
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.
Caporegime
One of them assaulted him with a skateboard after he had just been kicked whilst on the ground.
The other guy had a handgun on him that apparently he wasn't meant to have either due to his prior criminal record.
So yeah, did you even watch the video?
Erm this was after he killed someone shooting them in the head. I expect people to take down the shooter.
Stop picking specific points in the timeline of events out of context.
If someone hits you over the head with a skate board, knocks you unconscious, then kicks you in the head repeatedly causing brain damage, were they still unarmed? Once you use an object as a weapon you are no longer unarmed
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.
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.
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.
Suspended
So they were attacking him then...
Caporegime
So youre now saying that these rioters were trying to make a citizens arrest?
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.
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.
Don
This is why allowing the public to carry fire arms is a daft idea.
Soldato
The first person to attack the kid is at fault no matter what happened to him\her.
If not for the fact that these terrorists attacked the kid, it would not of happened.