Knowing what has happened to multiple people at the hands of rioters, given what Rosenbaum had said previously that evening to Kyle and add in the fact that nothing seemed to deter Rosenbaum from chasing Kyle down, and he was in the process of trying to grab his gun, do you think he thought his life was in danger?
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
People getting punched and dying or beaten to death does happen.
Lots of people had guns at these protests/riots and didn't shoot anyone.
What you're arguing if no one had turned up no one would have died.
I will agree that his inexperience got him into this situation and perhaps someone with more experience would have done things differently. But that a what if...
I agree, but there are countless fights/scuffles/altercations etc all the time, which dont end up with someone using deadly force to stop them.
Correct, yet only Kyle ended up killing two people, wounding another, and narrowly missing killing/wounding a fourth person.
Possibly. But simply saying you thought your life was in danger, isn't just a 100% get out clause to killing someone. Reasonable force comes into play, and really that is the crux of this entire case when it comes to the more realistic things he may be found guilty of (ie reckless endangerment or even reckless homicide).
Self Defense is a highly complex area of law.
You're basically upset that he had the means to defend himself whilst being attacked because violent situations happen where people don't have that ability and he may have only been badly beaten? I mean this is essentially victim blaming lol. "OMG why didn't he take his beating instead of using deadly force!!!". The people attacking Kyle made the decision and 2 of them are dead, if you're dumb enough to physically attack someone with a gun who is actively retreating and trying to avoid conflict then that's on you, you won the Darwin award.
Yes hard to imagine why he felt he had to shoot someone, violence happens every day bro. Imagine actually continuing to defend this **** it's embarrassing and you make yourself look so stupid
But some do which is the point. Just because someone isn't armed doesn't mean they can't (or won't) kill you.
Who all attacked him first.
You're trying to infer he was reckless and uncontrolled with a gun. Yet the video and physical evidence refutes that. The last guy who was shot was only shot when he raised his weapon, and once he backed off, Rittenhouse also backed off. You'd have to say if he had not been isolated and with someone tougher and more experienced its likely things might have worked out differently. For example he turned and ran, with his back to any threats, and every time he was attacked.
You'd also have to consider it was because they thought he was vulnerable, they attacked him in the first place. If had been some tough guy in a defensive stance, or a couple of them with weapons, they wouldn't have gone near them.
He shouldn't have been there. It was bad luck that his paths cross with a troubled homeless guy. He was naïve and stupid. But then attacking someone holding an automatic weapon was hardly a smart move, what ever the motivations.
You avoid things like protests and riots for good reason.
Last edited:
Soldato
People are killed in the UK all the time with knives or other objects? Is it different because its not bullets doing the killing?
They're actually allowed to defend themselves over there, giving the people the right to arm themselves levels the playing field, a women being attacked by some guy in this country? Shes a goner, in the states, she could quite easily defend herself.
You should sub to "active self protection" its actually quite eye opening.
Caporegime
Is that bloke kicking him the one he killed?You're basically upset that he had the means to defend himself whilst being attacked because violent situations happen where people don't have that ability and he may have only been badly beaten? I mean this is essentially victim blaming lol. "OMG why didn't he take his beating instead of using deadly force!!!". The people attacking Kyle made the decision and 2 of them are dead, if you're dumb enough to physically attack someone with a gun who is actively retreating and trying to avoid conflict then that's on you, you won the Darwin award.
Yes hard to imagine why he felt he had to shoot someone, violence happens every day bro. Imagine actually continuing to defend this **** it's embarrassing and you make yourself look so stupid
Soldato
@robfosters - No, Rittenhouse fired 1 (maybe 2?) shots as he was being kicked which missed this guy, however the guy behind the "kicker" in that image is the skateboard holder who was shot and killed a few seconds later.
Soldato
Absolutely, people are cowards until they have numbers on their side, then all of a sudden theyre tough guys, didn't work out to well for them though did it.
People are allowed to defend themselves using reasonable force in the UK?
iirc you are 4 x more likely to be murdered successfully in the USA than in the UK, so I guess all their self protection guns aren’t working very well…
If anything if I was trying to murder someone, and they pulled a gun on me, I’d appreciate them supplying me the weapon I can use to kill them more easily. Life isn’t a movie.
8 shots in total. 4 the first guy. 2 the guy he missed. 1 the skateboard guy and 1 the guy who was wounded.
But you can't really look at it without the context of what was happening at the time.
Suspended
OMG Hurf, you're so hard man. You post that crap and then finish it with "life isn't a movie". Beautiful.
In the UK and out of work and sick you will get help. Not so in the US. Very different perspective.
1) That's a case prosecuted under terrorist legislation and isn't applicable to the 'normal' caution and non terrorist offences and any inferences to be drawn from it and the US has had some far more authoritarian anti terrorist legislation like the Patriot act which was far more likely to open avenues for miscarriages of justice
and 2) the appeal to the ECHR found that the inferences were not a significant part of his conviction
OMG Hurf, you're so hard man. You post that crap and then finish it with "life isn't a movie". Beautiful.
A subtle nod to the notion that someone who draws a gun on their attacker is likely to be killed with the weapon rather than use it successfully to defend themselves.
There’s loads of societal differences… but 4 times as likely?!
If you read the CPS guidance, the exceptions to the "normal" situation you propose are too numerous to cite. Not as though antiterrorism should be any reason to remove a suspects rights though, especially considering this tends to be where the most egregious violations of due process come from.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences
I don't find any of this to be a convincing argument not to have an equivilent to the 5th amendment in the UK, our countries laws are a shocking state of affairs that routinely cause injustice.
Last edited: