Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

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

Yeah, I guess with the number of times it has probably been used that isn't too surprising that it could be grounds for an appeal.

 

[Jono8]

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.



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?



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?

A. The initial firing of the gun seconds before Kyle shot Rosenbaum has nothing to do with Rosenbaum (ie the guy he shot) and was made elsewhere to the altercation between the two.

You can't go to a riot, and then shoot someone because you hear a loud bang coming from somewhere (something you might be likely to hear), therefore it's largely irrelevant.

B. I think he generally acted recklessly throughout and used excessive force in all instances. I do think he was acting in self defense in his mind, but he got flustered and panicked and was the only person to resort to deadly force.

Like I've said in posts earlier, I don't believe every scuffle or fight should end up in someone killing someone.

 

[Jono8]

Whilst old, this is an interesting article from a Harvard law professor on the incident.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...nse-argument-gets-help-from-twisted-gun-logic

It's similar to how I feel on the subject.

 

[dowie]

A. The initial firing of the gun seconds before Kyle shot Rosenbaum has nothing to do with Rosenbaum (ie the guy he shot) and was made elsewhere to the altercation between the two.

You can't go to a riot, and then shoot someone because you hear a loud bang coming from somewhere (something you might be likely to hear), therefore it's largely irrelevant.

Again, he didn't shoot the guy who fired nor is it his sole justification for shooting Rosenbaum. You're arguing, for a third time, against a point that wasn't made (no one claimed he was justified simply because a gun was fired) and are being especially silly in doing so when it's been answered/pointed out twice already.

B. I think he generally acted recklessly throughout and used excessive force in all instances. I do think he was acting in self defense in his mind, but he got flustered and panicked and was the only person to resort to deadly force.

Like I've said in posts earlier, I don't believe every scuffle or fight should end up in someone killing someone.

Yes but why? you don't seem to be able to explain why? You just repeat the assertion and keep it vague/are incapable of actually articulating your point.

re: the first claim, you've now claimed twice that the firing of the gun was in a completely different area - this is again because you've clearly not watched the footage, the screen shot below is misleading and is perhaps the source of your confusion here:

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 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.

This is why you're wrong, it's illustrated clearly in the video below if you skip to 4:40

Here are some key screenshots:

The Ziminskis circled in red, Mrs Ziminski clearly pointing ay Kyle (circled in blue) and Rosenbaum (circled in orange) immediately gives chase:



Rosenbaum chasing Kyle:



Mr Ziminski walking along right behind them firing a gun into the air:



You claim that gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle, that, in your words, "The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase", "was made elsewhere to the altercation between the two." etc.. when that is clearly false, it occurred seconds after the person who fired the gun and his wife had just pointed out Rittenhouse to Rosenbaum and they were following directly behind him!

 

[Jono8]

Again, he didn't shoot the guy who fired nor is it his sole justification for shooting Rosenbaum. You're arguing, for a third time, against a point that wasn't made (no one claimed he was justified simply because a gun was fired) and are being especially silly in doing so when it's been answered/pointed out twice already.



Yes but why? you don't seem to be able to explain why? You just repeat the assertion and keep it vague/are incapable of actually articulating your point.

re: the first claim, you've now claimed twice that the firing of the gun was in a completely different area - this is again because you've clearly not watched the footage, the screen shot below is misleading and is perhaps the source of your confusion here:



This is why you're wrong, it's illustrated clearly in the video below if you skip to 4:40

Here are some key screenshots:

The Ziminskis circled in red, Mrs Ziminski clearly pointing ay Kyle (circled in blue) and Rosenbaum (circled in orange) immediately gives chase:



Rosenbaum chasing Kyle:



Mr Ziminski walking along right behind them firing a gun into the air:



You claim that gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle, that, in your words, "The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase", "was made elsewhere to the altercation between the two." etc.. when that is clearly false, it occurred seconds after the person who fired the gun and his wife had just pointed out Rittenhouse to Rosenbaum and they were following directly behind him!

All that still highlights a gun being fired by a different person and not next to Kyle.

I'm unsure what your point is anymore.

You've just gone on your usual long tedious tirade without saying anything.

What was your point about about the gun being fired then? Is it relevant to his defense or not?

 

[dowie]

All that still highlights a gun being fired by a different person and not next to Kyle.

No, it isn't a different person it's Ziminski you can just watch the whole clip, there isn't another person firing a gun nearby too.

I'm unsure what your point is anymore.

You've just gone on your usual long tedious tirade without saying anything.

That's not true, I actually make coherent points/arguments., you simply deflect/ignore when questions about your assertions.

You claimed:

"The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase", "was made elsewhere to the altercation between the two."

That's completely false, I've shown that to be false by providing you with video footage and screen shots to show that isn't the case.

What was your point about about the gun being fired then? Is it relevant to his defense or not?

Yeah, it's absolutely relevant, Kyle claims that Ziminski threatened him with the gun first and that he told Rosenbaum to get him, he's then heard a gunshot behind him as he's fleeing, he doesn't know if it's into the air or was at him (given he's claiming he was just threatened with aa gun), then the other guy Rosenbaum catches him and makes a lunge & according to Kyle grabs his gun. so he's being pursued by more than one person, clearly in fear for his life and one of them has caught him, he's cut off and he's fired when his gun was grabbed. He's also then not keen to stick around - again, he was (he claims) threatened with a gun and that gun was fired, more people are getting angry etc.. no wonder he took off/fled from the scene.

Just to preempt it, again, at no point has anyone claimed that the firing of the gun is a sole justification for shooting someone.

Also, note you've ignored/deflected a direct question re: your claims/unsupported assertions yet again...

Are you going to answer or not?

Yes but why? you don't seem to be able to explain why? You just repeat the assertion and keep it vague/are incapable of actually articulating your point.

 

[OspreyO]

... I think he generally acted recklessly throughout and used excessive force in all instances. ....

That makes no sense. None.

 

[OspreyO]

.....

Also, note you've ignored/deflected a direct question re: your claims/unsupported assertions yet again...

Are you going to answer or not?

You don't get an answer because that's how whataboutery works.

 

[JRS]

Whataboutery, maybe. But a point:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459902296796499978

 

[Jono8]

No, it isn't a different person it's Ziminski you can just watch the whole clip, there isn't another person firing a gun nearby too.
?

Lol

I think you are just intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying now.

I'm not entertaining your tedious BS anymore.

I've made my opinion quite clear. Its quite valid, and if you disagree, then thats fine. Many legal minds that know immensely more about it than you or I , are just as divided on the matter and it's a rather complex legal matter.

 

[OspreyO]

Whilst old, this is an interesting article from a Harvard law professor on the incident.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...nse-argument-gets-help-from-twisted-gun-logic

It's similar to how I feel on the subject.

That article is undermined because it leaves out known facts to imply pre-emptive shooting for self defense. But that's not what happened in the videos. He also mentions that running away adds credence to self defense. But then fails to mention that Rittenhouse was doing that in all the video evidence.

 

[Jono8]

You don't get an answer because that's how whataboutery works.

At no point have I introduced any whataboutery. Sounds like you liked the sound of that Internet buzzword and tried to shoehorn it into here.

I'm maintaining the point that Zaminksi firing a gun into the air somewhere nearby (out of sight to Kyle so he has no idea who actually made the bang) does not give Kyle an excuse to kill Rosenbaum.

 

[OspreyO]

Whataboutery, maybe. But a point:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459902296796499978

You'll have to explain how you think they are in any way related.

 

[OspreyO]

At no point have inintrpduce any whataboutery.

I'm maintaining the point that Zaminksi firing a gun into the air somewhere nearby (out of sight to Kyle so he has no idea who actually made the bang) does not give Kyle an excuse to kill Rosenbaum.

It's exactly whataboutery because it's not used as an self defense argument.

There is no evidence to suggest Rosenbaum was intentionally killed either.

 

[Jono8]

It's exactly whataboutery because it's not used as an self defense argument.

There is no evidence to suggest Rosenbaum was intentionally killed either.

A. That isnt whataboutery

B. I think you've completely missed what was actually being said because you've been confused by Dowie's endless tedious nonsense/replies.

 

[OspreyO]

A. That isnt whataboutery

B. I think you've completely missed what was actually being said because you've been confused by Dowie's endless tedious nonsense/replies.

I've quoted you exactly, and proving the point, you've just changed the subject again. Classic deflection.

 

[JRS]

You'll have to explain how you think they are in any way related.

Do I?

Okay. In smallish words:

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool' while doing so to a protest and ended up killing people, saying it was self-defence.

The very same right reckoned that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend firing at a wholly unannounced entry into his home - an entry which was in itself a complete screw-up - wasn't self-defence.

Please do let me know if you need that making simpler, or maybe translating into a different language. I am nothing if not accomodating

 

[Dis86]

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool'

Prove it.

 

[Jono8]

I've quoted you exactly, and proving the point, you've just changed the subject again. Classic deflection.

You haven't made any sense or explained why what I said was whataboutery (which you won't be able to do because it isn't, so good luck with that).

 

[JRS]

Prove it.

Oh, please.

What the hell else was it designed for then? Looking good next to your man-purse? Going well with your fancy-dan wildly expensive Ford truck where you spent the money on the interior and the paint rather than the engine and transmission? An objet d'art to go on a shelf?

What is it for if not for killing?