Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

[

God, what a lot of tedious guff to go through (as usual)

Addressed none of my points and then you have just proceeded to run off a total word salad / gish gallop because you have no actual point to make or can't counter what i've said with anything useful.

Not sure why you are suddenly bringing up these people's criminal past when talking about Kyle's reactions to them in the moment. Kyle had no idea of their criminal past, so that is totally irrelevant.

(Also, i meant "conciliatory". Not sure why it ended up being contractionary. My bad. Not sure why you started going on about 'contradictory'. You could have just asked "did you mean to type contractionary or something else?")

Because you typed contradictory.. I’m not a mind reader, I can only respond to what you’ve presented which incidentally makes your response claiming I’ve typed “guff” all the more ironic.

Realistically though it’s you that has types guff with your attempts to downplay and your total denial of reality re the threats being faced… Being threatened by a gun then chased them a gun fired behind you is a pretty clear threat as is making explicitly verbal death threats and then pursing and trying to grab the rifle you’re holding. Pretty textbook self defence claim there.

Trying to make a thing of him turning around mid pursuit and aiming his rifle a super weak.

As for their criminal past, you’re speculating on their intentions etc.. these are violent criminals, of course it’s relevant to that point. That the paedo guy was suicidal, a total mental case and released that morning and the main trouble maker/instigator makes things pretty clear… he wasn’t exactly running after Kyle to have a nice chat with him FFS!

 

[Jono8]

[


Because you typed contradictory.. I’m not a mind reader, I can only respond to what you’ve presented which incidentally makes your response claiming I’ve typed “guff” all the more ironic.

Realistically though it’s you that has types guff with your attempts to downplay and your total denial of reality re the threats being faced… Being threatened by a gun then chased them a gun fired behind you is a pretty clear threat as is making explicitly verbal death threats and then pursing and trying to grab the rifle you’re holding. Pretty textbook self defence claim there.

Trying to make a thing of him turning around mid pursuit and aiming his rifle a super weak.

A. I typed contractionary (not the word I meant to post, but not contradictory)

B. The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle. Hearing a gunshot is a terrible thing to even bring into his defense. You can't kill someone because someone else somewhere let's off a gun. It speaks to his panicking mindset and reinforces he feared for his life. However it doesn't help, in terms of being reckless with his weapon/using more than reasonable force (which was my point).

C. The bit about turning and pointing his gun once before he then turned again and shot him highlights that all he did was likely escalate the situation by directly threatening him back with a deadly weapon.

In both the 1st and 3rd shootings, Kyle pointed his weapon at them before the final approach that led to Kyle shooting them.

If you are not interested in disputing the prosecutions points and what the jury may be deliberating about, then thats fine. You have obviously made up your mind but I bet not everyone on the jury has yet.

Fundamentally we just don't agree. I dont believe that he wanted to kill people and I totally appreciate the self defense arguments. However, I think he was reckless and used excessive force in some instances. He put himself in an inevitably confrontational situation which he was unable to handle in a proportional manner.

 

[dowie]

A. I typed contractionary (not the word I meant to post, but not contradictory)

Why not just clarify what you meant then instead of making a big song and dance of it… What do you mean here? Did you miss the video where Rittenhouse lowers his rifle? Did you miss that he ran away from everyone, that they were the aggressors?

B. The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle.

OK that’s total BS, the guy who fired it is the whole reason Kyle started running FFS! You’re basing your argument on ignorance here. Kyle had an encounter with him, claims he was threatened with the gun and rather than shoot tries to run away, the guy told the paedo to get him and also pursued then fired.

. You can't kill someone because someone else somewhere let's off a gun.

He didn’t, seriously go read the sequence of events as you’re clueless here. The person who fired the gun is still alive and is being charged for firing the gun. Kyle killed someone shortly after because they’d threatened to kill him, chased him down and then caught up with him where he was cornered and apparently tried to grab his rifle… this is after pointing it at them mid pursuit didn’t stop their pursuit.

C. The bit about turning and pointing his gun once before he then turned again and shot him highlights that all he did was likely escalate the situation by directly threatening him back with a deadly weapon.

And he was justified in doing so, like the guy threatened to kill him and then chased after him… so he tried to get him to back off first without using force then it was too late and so he had to escalate further. This was pretty textbook self defence! Of course he escalated, key point is he was also trying to get away too.

Fundamentally we just don't agree. I dont believe that he wanted to kill people and I totally appreciate the self defense arguments. However, I think he was reckless and used excessive force in some instances. He put himself in an inevitably confrontational situation which he was unable to handle in a proportional manner.

You don’t seem to appreciate the self defence arguments though and you’re being vague again, where did he use excessive force? Which incident specifically?

You can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to dispute the self defence argument then do so and outline where it fails, which incident and how could it have been done differently?

If you’re going to say he shouldn’t have gotten slept up then sure, but if you’re talking about the incidents that occurred then… go ahead, which ones and why.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

There wasn't a comparison made, it was an example of American attitudes. I know you struggle with reading comprehension though so don't worry I won't judge.

You mentioned 911 in a discussion about the riots and how Americans react to being attacked. Of course you are making them comparable

To play devil's advocate wouldn't you consider Antifa to be an international terrorist organisation considering their actions lead to dozens of deaths and more overall devastation of communities than 9/11?

No. They don't set out to cause terror of the public through attacks and killing. They are idiots and do nothing to help the fight against right wing extremism which is what anti fascists used to stand for many years ago.

 

[Dis86]

No. They don't set out to cause terror of the public through attacks and killing. They are idiots and do nothing to help the fight against right wing extremism which is what anti fascists used to stand for many years ago.

They literally use violence to attempt to achieve political aims. Its the literal definition of terrorism.

 

[Jono8]

OK that’s total BS, the guy who fired it is the whole reason Kyle started running FFS! You’re basing your argument on ignorance here. Kyle had an encounter with him, claims he was threatened with the gun and rather than shoot tries to run away, the guy told the paedo to get him and also pursued then fired.

Ok, lets break this down into easy little bitesize chunks to counter your ridiculous and tedious gish-galloping reply style (ie dissecting a post into a bazillion separate points/separate arguments to make instead of discussing the overarching idea), and start with the above^

Please read what i said again: "The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle."

How was that "BS"?

Is there proof that the firing of that gun at that time had anything to do with Kyle?

 

[Roar87]

You mentioned 911 in a discussion about the riots and how Americans react to being attacked. Of course you are making them comparable

Ok man maybe English isn't your first language or you struggle with basic reading comprehension I'm not sure

 

[dowie]

edit - this was a duplicate post

Might as well highlight something re: the firearms charge, even that is a bit uncertain, I'd assumed it might have been a slam dunk for the prosecution however while Kyle has clearly violated the spirit of the law he might not have actually violated the law and seemingly could have been correct in his argument with the DA.

It seems there is a grey area where someone is over 16 but under 18, not just related to hunting either but barrel length etc.. is relevant. Will have to see what the jury instructions are but it might be simply that he's over 16 but under 18 & is the barrel length long enough.

 

[dowie]

Please read what i said again: "The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle."

How was that "BS"?

Here is a bite-sized chunk you just ignored from the post you literally just replied to:

OK that’s total BS, the guy who fired it is the whole reason Kyle started running FFS!

The gun was fired after an encounter between that guy and Kyle, he was following after Kyle and according to Kyle had just threatened him and set Rosenbaum on him.

The gun wasn't fired randomly, it was likely in direct relation to that encounter and pursuit where Kyle proceeded to turn and point his weapon.


Now before you get into your deflection nonsense can you address the below:

You don’t seem to appreciate the self defence arguments though and you’re being vague again, where did he use excessive force? Which incident specifically?

You can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to dispute the self defence argument then do so and outline where it fails, which incident and how could it have been done differently?

If you’re going to say he shouldn’t have gotten slept up then sure, but if you’re talking about the incidents that occurred then… go ahead, which ones and why.

 

[crazyDAJT]

edit - this was a duplicate post

Might as well highlight something re: the firearms charge, even that is a bit uncertain, I'd assumed it might have been a slam dunk for the prosecution however while Kyle has clearly violated the spirit of the law he might not have actually violated the law and seemingly could have been correct in his argument with the DA.

It seems there is a grey area where someone is over 16 but under 18, not just related to hunting either but barrel length etc.. is relevant. Will have to see what the jury instructions are but it might be simply that he's over 16 but under 18 & is the barrel length long enough.

my feeling is the firearms charge will be directed as no law has been broken as listening to the arguments the law is highly ambiguous. The judge said he had looked at it for some time and can’t work it out. Therefore there is no case to answer.

the whole case will come down to who is the first aggressor, in the fist shooting. Did he point the firearm unjustly before Rosenbaum started running. The prosecution try to use a blurry photo and a drone video to prove he raised his firearm first.

If the first shooting is self defence, it doesn’t matter that others believe he is an active shooter as long as it’s reasonable for him to believe his life is under threat he can continue to act in self defence.

to summarise this all pivots on the justification of the first shooting and who the first aggressor was.

 

[dowie]

my feeling is the firearms charge will be directed as no law has been broken as listening to the arguments the law is highly ambiguous. The judge said he had looked at it for some time and can’t work it out. Therefore there is no case to answer.

Yeah, that seems quite possible - the discussion around it seemed vague, like how can the judge order the jury to find the "truth" re: the length of the barrel etc.. when that can be objectively measured?

I guess we'll see on Monday.

the whole case will come down to who is the first aggressor, in the fist shooting. Did he point the firearm unjustly before Rosenbaum started running. The prosecution try to use a blurry photo and a drone video to prove he raised his firearm first.

If the first shooting is self defence, it doesn’t matter that others believe he is an active shooter as long as it’s reasonable for him to believe his life is under threat he can continue to act in self defence.

to summarise this all pivots on the justification of the first shooting and who the first aggressor was.

Yup, that seems to be a critical argument by the DA - there is a chance (less likely but still there) he does get a conviction (maybe of a lesser charge) as a result, IF they buy that... But it wouldn't be a very safe conviction at all - can't see how they could find it "beyond reasonable doubt" even if they buy the prosecution line.

The (rather clumsy) technical arguments re: zooming, resolution etc.. do seem kinda relevant too in retrospect, the prosecution are basing their case on some very ambiguous, blurry images of Rittenhouse in order to claim that he pointed his weapon first and that that was sufficient provocation to justify Rosenbaum chasing him. It kinda is the case that every pixel counts there and so blowing up lowe res footage on a 4k screen as they insisted on doing is going to add pixels, smoothing etc.. and if that happened to make the hard to figure out blur look slightly more in their favour then...

The defence had a reasonable rebuttal - he's right-handed IIRC, every other bit of footage seems to show him holding the rifle in his right hand/shoulder but they want to claim that this blurry footage shows him pointing the rifle which, given his stance & the supposed position of the rifle the defence argue would mean he was briefly holding it in his left hand/shoulder there - they, of course, argue that it's the sling they're looking at, which comes across from the left shoulder. All those little pixes count! Though it ought to be a straightforward argument that given how blurry it is the jury can't possibly be convinced of that prosecution argument "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[crazyDAJT]

The (rather clumsy) technical arguments re: zooming, resolution etc.. do seem kinda relevant too in retrospect, the prosecution are basing their case on some very ambiguous, blurry images of Rittenhouse in order to claim that he pointed his weapon first and that that was sufficient provocation to justify Rosenbaum chasing him. It kinda is the case that every pixel counts there and so blowing up lowe res footage on a 4k screen as they insisted on doing is going to add pixels, smoothing etc.. and if that happened to make the hard to figure out blur look slightly more in their favour then...

I watched this exchange, it sounds Ludicrous. However by definition they are adding pixels. However they don’t know how Apple or (my guess) Samsung are filling in the gaps. So how can a determination on how accurate this process is made? Is it up to a standard of a criminal trial or is it just a best guess to make it look good.

 

[OspreyO]

You'd have to say if you are blowing up tiny res photos, already pixelated when they were captured and trying to smooth them out. Then trying to infer a critical decision based on a pixel being here or there, you'd have to say unless its clear in the first instance. Then they whole thing should be dismissed as unknown. Besides which we can see the context of the incident in Rittenhouse running away from Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum chasing him down. Its very illogical to paint Rittenhouse as the instigator in a situation that he's running away from Rosenbaum.

However we can see Rittenhouse actions in the subsequent videos and shootings, there is clear restraint in those. In all cases he is running away.

You can really only argue he shouldn't have been there. Well none of them should have been in that case.

 

[dowie]

I watched this exchange, it sounds Ludicrous. However by definition they are adding pixels. However they don’t know how Apple or (my guess) Samsung are filling in the gaps. So how can a determination on how accurate this process is made? Is it up to a standard of a criminal trial or is it just a best guess to make it look good.

No idea what the legal standards are, I mean it's not just pinch and zoom but also drone footage shot at maybe SD/DVD quality or HD but being blown up to 4k on the big TV. I'd assume in most cases it is some fairly simple method of upscaling but that's still possible to get an edge with... like we're talking very blurry images so if the DA had looked at the footage at normal resolution, HD and upscaled to 4k and decided that the upscaled 4k footage looked more convincing for his rifle pointing argument then there is the risk of that cherry-picking and use of stuff that isn't necessarily there.

That's before getting into issues where something like a GAN has been used for upscaling, there are certainly apps that make use of them on tablets/phones etc.. but I'm not sure any native functionality does so.

 

[OspreyO]

This is the video showing the 1st chase

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9sGEbDry64&ab_channel=CBS58

 

[LeMson]

This is the video showing the 1st chase

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9sGEbDry64&ab_channel=CBS58

i know it was in the middle of a riot, but he was probably just chasing him to give him a hug

 

[Jono8]

Here is a bite-sized chunk you just ignored from the post you literally just replied to:



The gun was fired after an encounter between that guy and Kyle, he was following after Kyle and according to Kyle had just threatened him and set Rosenbaum

The gun wasn't fired randomly, it was likely in direct relation to that encounter and pursuit where Kyle proceeded to turn and point his weapon.

The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase, and came moments before Kyle turned and shot Rosenbaum. You can't just shoot someone because someone else somewhere nearby let off a gun.

Now before you get into your deflection nonsense can you address the below:

I've already said countless times that I appreciate the self defense argument and that I don't think he wanted to intentionally kill them. However, I think that generally he acted recklessly and used excessive force. You can still act in self defense but act recklessly /with excessive force in doing so (or have acted recklessly to contribute to the situation as a whole). Hence the lesser charges he faces.

 

[aardvark]

No idea what the legal standards are, I mean it's not just pinch and zoom but also drone footage shot at maybe SD/DVD quality or HD but being blown up to 4k on the big TV. I'd assume in most cases it is some fairly simple method of upscaling but that's still possible to get an edge with... like we're talking very blurry images so if the DA had looked at the footage at normal resolution, HD and upscaled to 4k and decided that the upscaled 4k footage looked more convincing for his rifle pointing argument then there is the risk of that cherry-picking and use of stuff that isn't necessarily there.

That's before getting into issues where something like a GAN has been used for upscaling, there are certainly apps that make use of them on tablets/phones etc.. but I'm not sure any native functionality does so.

i can't find it now but i did see a reddit post last week from a company that makes enhancement software and they said that yes, the apple zoom interpolates the image and adds details.
there was also apparently a case where interpolation slightly changed the angle of a gun in a court case when zoomed and i think that lead to a mistrial or a retrial - ive searched and i can't find it again

 

[Jono8]

On Fridays developments:

If the latest footage that has been put to the jury to consider does show he raised his rifle at Rosenbaum first then that's going to be immensely significant to the whole thing. Its something that I always thought was likely as it seems odd that Kyle was just randomly singled out to be chased. If there was no proof to show this, then he could not be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of charges related to starting it, but if there IS, then it certainly makes things interesting. It certainly opens the door more to the second degree/ reckless charges.

The added lesser charges are interesting and some legal opinions I've read have said that the fact the defense didn't object to all of them means they aren't completely confident of an acquittal. I guess they may be thinking that just one or two lesser charges may not net him much jail time if the judge is sympathetic.

 

[dowie]

The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase, and came moments before Kyle turned and shot Rosenbaum. You can't just shoot someone because someone else somewhere nearby let off a gun.

I've already replied to that point here, he didn't shoot someone because of that, he shot someone when they eventually made a grab for his rifle. The shooting (and the earlier threat) is part of the sequence of events/context however it is the cornering of Kyle + the grab for the rifle (after a prior threat to kill from that person) that justified the shooting.

He didn’t, seriously go read the sequence of events as you’re clueless here. The person who fired the gun is still alive and is being charged for firing the gun. Kyle killed someone shortly after because they’d threatened to kill him, chased him down and then caught up with him where he was cornered and apparently tried to grab his rifle… this is after pointing it at them mid pursuit didn’t stop their pursuit.

I've still seen no argument for why that initial firing of a gun had nothing to do with Kyle, just an assertion you've not bothered supporting. Do you suppose it was just fired randomly?

I've already said countless times that I appreciate the self defense argument and that I don't think he wanted to intentionally kill them. However, I think that generally he acted recklessly and used excessive force. You can still act in self defense but act recklessly /with excessive force in doing so (or have acted recklessly to contribute to the situation as a whole). Hence the lesser charges he faces.

Yes you can but what specifically are you talking about. You don’t seem to appreciate the self defence arguments and you’re being vague again, where did he use excessive force? Which incident specifically and why?

You can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to dispute the self defence argument then do so and outline where it fails, which incident and how could it have been done differently?