Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

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.

That still doesn't mean that deadly force is reasonable in all such similar scenarios.

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.

I don't believe that beyond Rosenbaum, those that attacked him did so because they perceived him as vulnerable. One of them testified that he perceived Kyle to be an active shooter at that moment, and i imagine the others did to (hence why the situation evolved as it did). I'm not saying they were correct in that assumption, but in their mind, they were trying to disarm/stop him. I highly doubt any of them planned to just execute him then and there. I imagine they were looking to incapacitate him (which would be seen by the same people on here as heroic if he was an active shooter) to stop him shooting anyone else/getting away.

The issue with all of this is that the actions taken are all based on people's worst case assumptions.

Was Rosenbaum likely to just kill/seriously injure Kyle once he got to him? Unlikely (like i said earlier...like a dog chasing cars).

Was Kyle an active shooter? No.

Did the other people nearby who had heard he just shot someone know that? No

Did they think he was a potential murderer who needed stopping/disarming? Most likely

Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No. We know some had firearms, yet not one of them fired at Kyle, in spite of having plenty of opportunities to do so.

Fundamentally though, it was only Kyle who resorted to deadly force (and multiple times - 4 in total) and no one else.

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.

I agree
 
Last edited:
Was Rosenbaum likely to just kill/seriously injure Kyle once he got to him? Unlikely (like i said earlier...like a dog chasing cars).

That’s pretty dubious, very likely to seriously injure him quite plausible he’d have killed him too - this was an unhinged mental person who was carrying a chain around earlier and making death threats and getting violent with people.

Key thing is that Kyle reasonably believed his life was in danger even after retreating.

Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No. We know some had firearms, yet not one of them fired at Kyle, in spite of having plenty of opportunities to do so.

That’s just false, one of them did both threaten Kyle and either fire at him or into the air behind him. (This he’s not going to want to stick around after the first shooting) The other had a firearm and was shot by Kyle as soon as he aimed it st him. In that latter case he was very likely to have killed him had he then discharged it thus Kyle opened fire.

Fundamentally though, it was only Kyle who resorted to deadly force (and multiple times - 4 in total) and no one else.

Fundamentally though he was the only one who was attacked and had to resort to defending himself.

Kind of a moot point to highlight really - I think you’d find most of the others who were carrying firearms would use them too if attacked/in fear for their lives.
 
after retreating.

Until he stopped retreating, turned and aimed his gun at Rosenbaum/threatened him, then continued running, then turned again, saw Rosenbaum lunge and shot him 4 times.

That’s just false, one of them did both threaten Kyle and either fire at him or into the air behind him. (This he’s not going to want to stick around after the first shooting) The other had a firearm and was shot by Kyle as soon as he aimed it st him. In that latter case he was very likely to have killed him had he then discharged it thus Kyle opened fire.

It isnt false at all. The firing of a gun before the Rosenbaum killing has not been ascertained/proven to be anything to do with Kyle or proven to have been aimed at him or even near him. In the latter case, both of them had their weapons drawn on them at different points, but only Kyle (again) opened fire.

Kind of a moot point to highlight really - I think you’d find most of the others who were carrying firearms would use them too if attacked/in fear for their lives.

Except they didn't. In fact the final shooting highlights the fundamental difference in restraint/use of force. Grosskreutz when he had Kyle aim his weapon at him stopped for a moment and showed contrition. When Grosskreutz then proceeds to approach him with his weapon still drawn/facing Kyle, Kyle shoots.

At any point that Kyle felt even remotely threatened, he used deadly force.

I never once saw Kyle, in any of the videos act in any of the videos act in a contractionary manner (You will say he was "retreating", but unless you are a mind reader, you have no way of knowing what the intention with someone running in a certain direction is). As far as i can see he never once showed he was not ready to shoot. He always seemed to be holding his rifle in a ready position, and aimed it at people several times.
 
I didn’t know much about this kid or the trial but after watching footage and hearing testimonies the last few days If I was In His shoes that night I think I would have did the same as him , to be in his position with armed people chasing him after getting death threats must have been scary and I think if he didn’t shoot then he may well be the one who was killed
 
I didn’t know much about this kid or the trial but after watching footage and hearing testimonies the last few days If I was In His shoes that night I think I would have did the same as him , to be in his position with armed people chasing him after getting death threats must have been scary and I think if he didn’t shoot then he may well be the one who was killed

You would have illegally acquired a gun, travelled to a riot zone and defended a businessmans property who you had no affiliation with?
 
You would have illegally acquired a gun, travelled to a riot zone and defended a businessmans property who you had no affiliation with?

"a riot zone", also known as a city by the way.

I don't think people understand American attitudes in here, but a lot of people immediately went and signed up for the military following the 9/11 attacks. People feel strongly about defending their country and community. If you don't then I honestly don't think you have a strong grasp of society and what holds it together.
 
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.

The homicide rates in the UK and the US aren't remotely the same. US 5 per 100k, England& Wales 1.2 per 100k. Do you think allowing members of the public to carry guns everywhere would increase or decrease that number? Would we have more or less mass killing events?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

As for a gun serving as self protection, that only works if you are prepared to actually use the gun and trained to use it without freezing or panicking and having the weapon taken off you or just missing entirely. I could get behind people being licenced to carry mace or even handheld taser that you have to touch someone with for self defence but guns everywhere, no thanks. Even then though they would be used and abused.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that beyond Rosenbaum, those that attacked him did so because they perceived him as vulnerable. One of them testified that he perceived Kyle to be an active shooter at that moment, and i imagine the others did to (hence why the situation evolved as it did). I'm not saying they were correct in that assumption, but in their mind, they were trying to disarm/stop him.

If some of the people there believed him to be an active shooter then attempting to disarm him and apprehend him would be seen as an act of
bravery. We'll never know exactly how everyone there perceived him. Still, children shouldn't be wandering the streets with weapons of war or any firearm. Absolute madness.
 
If some of the people there believed him to be an active shooter then attempting to disarm him and apprehend him would be seen as an act of
bravery.

Well one of them testified under oath that that was what he thought, which is believable given the confusion of the situation.

As you say if Kyle was actually an active shooter (he wasn't in this case, but that is no doubt what some thought), then that chap would no doubt be commended for his bravery and attempts at disarming/stopping the shooter (he even showed restraint, in that he did not fire at Kyle).

I think that final event is the most tragic from watching the video. Kyle sits there and aims his rifle at Grosskreutz as he approaches. Grosskreutz sort of stops/shows contrition then Kyle starts to lower his weapon and he then moves on Kyle again with the gun still in his hand , presumably to try and disarm or restrain Kyle (if what he says is true about believing he is active shooter), but Kyle instead panics and assumes he is about to be killed and shoots him.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know much about this kid or the trial but after watching footage and hearing testimonies the last few days If I was In His shoes that night I think I would have did the same as him , to be in his position with armed people chasing him after getting death threats must have been scary and I think if he didn’t shoot then he may well be the one who was killed
Yeah, I'd be scared to death too, but I don't think I'd have the courage to kill... I am too peaceful
although who knows what would have happened to my mentality at that moment
 
So 9/11 is comparable with a riot in Kenosha?

Got it.

There was national riots all over the country, people were burning down cities and causing billions in damages. There wasn't just a riot in Kenosha that was being handled by the Police, there was wanton destruction and vandalism on a large scale that the Police were failing to do anything about, a lot of people felt they needed to do their part to try and stop their country from being destroyed. How do you not get that? It was huge national news.
 
You would have illegally acquired a gun, travelled to a riot zone and defended a businessmans property who you had no affiliation with?

I think it’s clear to understand I am talking about how I may have felt if I was in his position the moments just before and during the shooting and my thoughts are that I would defend myself with deadly force if necessary if I felt scared that my life was in danger, although that’s just my thoughts , I don’t actually know what I’d do in reality
 
There was national riots all over the country, people were burning down cities and causing billions in damages. There wasn't just a riot in Kenosha that was being handled by the Police, there was wanton destruction and vandalism on a large scale that the Police were failing to do anything about, a lot of people felt they needed to do their part to try and stop their country from being destroyed. How do you not get that? It was huge national news.

Not on August 23rd-25th, it was mainly around Kenosha.

A few days after there was some trouble in Minneapolis that started because of a false rumor the police shot another black man.

Other than that, the unrest had been sporadic throughout the year, mainly in the aftermath of George Floyd's death.
 
I think it’s clear to understand I am talking about how I may have felt if I was in his position the moments just before and during the shooting and my thoughts are that I would defend myself with deadly force if necessary if I felt scared that my life was in danger, although that’s just my thoughts , I don’t actually know what I’d do in reality

As I'm sure would we all.

My point was, he didn't need to put himself in that position in the first place.
 
'Unrest' 'some trouble' 'mostly peaceful protests'. Have to hand it to the msm by in large their framing has worked wonders on their followers.

Unrest is an umbrella term. Not all the protests were riots.

Approx 25 people died in total over the entire 2020 protests, and few were demonstraters.

By comparison in the 6 days of trouble in London during the 2011 riots, 5 people died.
 
Until he stopped retreating, turned and aimed his gun at Rosenbaum/threatened him, then continued running, then turned again, saw Rosenbaum lunge and shot him 4 times.

What do you mean "until" there is no "until" point where he stopped being an obvious risk to Kyle and Kyle retreated... that's such an obvious case of self defence that you're utterly delusional to be arguing it.

It isnt false at all. The firing of a gun before the Rosenbaum killing has not been ascertained/proven to be anything to do with Kyle or proven to have been aimed at him or even near him. In the latter case, both of them had their weapons drawn on them at different points, but only Kyle (again) opened fire.

Totally false, he literally threatened Kyle with a gun and then fired it behind him... how is that not a threat??? Trying to downplay that is an incredible attempt at a cope here. Also pointing out that Kyle pointed his rifle is really dumb in comparison - it again ignores context, namely that he was turning while in the process of fleeing for his life and after someone had just fired their gun behind him after having threatened him with it!

Secondly, the last person approached him with a gun and then pointed it at him.

So yes it's totally false - in order for it to not be you'd have to argue that threatening someone with a gun, then pursuing them then firing it behind them isn't a threat??? And also that pursuing them with a gun in hand, feigning a surrender then suddenly pointing it at them also isn't a threat...

I suspect the jury is going to be somewhat more grounded than you next week and conclude that those things are indeed threats.

Except they didn't.

Yes, and that's a moot point - as none of the others were chased then attacked or threatened.

In fact the final shooting highlights the fundamental difference in restraint/use of force. Grosskreutz when he had Kyle aim his weapon at him stopped for a moment and showed contrition. When Grosskreutz then proceeds to approach him with his weapon still drawn/facing Kyle, Kyle shoots.

Of course, he showed contrition, he had an AR15 pointed at him! Kyle shoots when he drops his hands from surrendering and proceeds to point at Kyle, he literally admitted to this in court, it's on video

[qupte]
At any point that Kyle felt even remotely threatened, he used deadly force.[/quote]

Hardly "remotely", it's pretty clear cut in all the cases - someone literally drew a gun on him and then pursued and fired it behind him another with that person made explicit death threats and then chased after him and tried to grab his rifle. Another chased him with a mob of people out to get him and tried to stomp his head, he was attacked twice by the guy with the skateboard who also tried to grab his rifle and then lastly a guy approached with a gun, feigned a surrender then suddenly pointed it at Kyle... pretty clear lethal threat there.

In all those instances Kyle was the one retreating and they were the ones pursuing him then attacking or threatening.

I never once saw Kyle, in any of the videos act in any of the videos act in a contractionary manner (You will say he was "retreating", but unless you are a mind reader, you have no way of knowing what the intention with someone running in a certain direction is). As far as i can see he never once showed he was not ready to shoot. He always seemed to be holding his rifle in a ready position, and aimed it at people several times.

So what? He was being attacked and he was retreating, you don't need to be a mind reader, he's able to testify (and did indeed do so) in court if people wanted to know his claimed thoughts, they aren't necessary though for a self-defence argument just the fact that he was attacked/threatened and he was retreating should be sufficient.

This nonsense about Kyle was the only one to shoot people, Kyle was the only one acting in a "contradictory manner" WTF does that even mean here? The fact is those were all reactions... they were the result of other people attacking, pursuing and threatening him.

As for contradictory manner - look at the actions of the last person shot, he literally feigned a "surrender" hands in the air then when Kyle lowered his rifle he suddenly makes a move... there were some pretty quick reactions there from Kyle to be fair.

Funnily enough, all the trouble makes who attacked him/pursued him have criminal records too - the first person he shot is a literal mental case who buggers small boys, the second person he shot has a history of kidnapping women and the third person he shot was carrying a gun illegally and has a criminal past too.

Earlier on you were trying to draw inferences from a small quote etc.. when there was literally video footage for you to watch, you've clearly not watched some of the footage in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom