OK, but you're not clarifying what your point is still?
You ignored the question again:
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
OK, but you're not clarifying what your point is still?
You ignored the question again:
So what if they were intending to disarm him?
I suggested that myself re: the 2nd shooting incident, you just ignored it. It doens't negate his right to self-defence.
I'll point out again that they're not on trial.
Nope, in the first killing, he was being chased then he turned and pointed his gun.
In the third shooting, he does aim but then lowers it and doesn't shoot until the guy aims his pistol at him.
No. He was first chased by them in both instances, in the third one he aims before the other guy.
In the first one, the other guy doesn't have a gun - a third party first fires behind him.
Yes, after he's already been confronted by a guy with a pistol a verbal threat has been made and they're chasing him... something is thrown at him etc.. I'm not sure how that constitutes him pointing his gun first? The guy with the pistol even fired it first.
What are you referring to there - the claim the prosecutor made re: unclear footage which Rittenhouse has denied and said he's got his weapon in his shoulder pointed down.
He didn't even see Rosenbaum until after the encounter with the guy with the pistol.
Oh, so I think I understand what Jono8 is getting at - he's referring to the fact that Rittenhouse warned them both/pointed his gun but didn't fire in both cases, not that those were the first actions to take place in those instances but just that before firing they were essentially warned by Rittenhouse... then he escalated to firing when that didn't work in the first case (or when he had a firearm pointed at him in the 3rd case).
Yeah that's how I initially read it too, it was a bit ambiguous - but I think I get what he meant now.
Maybe leading up to them but once he was surprised by the other guy with a gun and chased by Rosenbaum then he's a bit stuck for options, I'd not want to let Rosenbaum take my rifle either.
Likewise with the third incident he quite plausible nearly did get shot - the guy did aim his gun at him before Kyle shot him, Kyle had lowered his gun, only shot him when he felt he had to.
Add in that all these people were chasing him and he was fleeing (the third guy even knew he was fleeing towards the police as he'd just told him that in an encounter further back down the road).
I'd disagree with that, it certainly wasn't unavoidable - Kyle got cut off, found himself alone - that was avoidable on his part. The three people shot all chose to chase him down and/or attack him, that was all avoidable.
Interesting, thanks for your comments.
I do wonder, aside from getting his perspective/justification re: self-defence if part of the reason the defence opted to get Kyle on the stand is because they might be angling for a sympathetic local jury - like his story might resonate - his dad lives there, he works as a lifeguard at the local pool, lots of his family live there, he was out cleaning up the town etc.. big emphasis on him trying to stop fires etc...
It seemed already that the prosecution case re: two of the shooting incidents (1st and 3rd) was already rather shakey but I don't see how they could get him out of the weapons charge and also the incident where he shot a second person also seems to be the riskier one. Maybe they're hoping plenty of the jurors are thinking along your lines and will see this as a kid who was angry at the destruction of the town etc.. If it's a small town like that then chance they might know of someone or know someone who knows someone whose business was destroyed etc..
Is the defence hoping they get some sort of jury nullification on the weapon's charge - if they're really sympathetic they might go not guilty on all charges.
Otherwise, I can't see how he escapes the weapons charge save for some convoluted 2nd amendment argument or some legal loophole we're not privy to yet + the second incident still seems risky with the skateboard.
reading a bit more it seems the law isn't as clear as I first thought re: the weapons charge either - Rittenhouse *might* have an argument re: local law re: the weapon's charge, he specifically noted in his back and forth with the prosecutor that he'd rather have but wasn't able to carry a pistol as that would be illegal for him.
Well not necessarily and that is what is being referred to here; "jury nullification", look it up if you're unaware of it, it's quite interesting.
I mean he didn't even do that, I don't know why it even gets brought up at this point, he was already in Kenosha and the rifle came from his friend's house where it was stored.
Possibly there is a legal argument re: local law on his side, possibly some 2nd amendment nonsense on appeal or possibly jury nullification. Otherwise, yeah, I guess it is a misdemeanor. Though media/Twitter will go nuts if it is seen as a light sentence as they're already convinced the judge is bad etc...
Where did I do that? nothing I've said is conditional on anything being slow and calculated?
Yeah the two people he killed were white and both of them are pretty scummy people too - one anally raped several young boys and the other was into kidnapping women. Might be some protests/outrage but can't see much in the way of mass rioting over the verdict.
In which case they should pass laws in relation to taking weapons to protests etc... though I guess that doesn't prevent say a business owner (or people they invite) having firearms on their property - such a law might have simply meant Rittenhouse and chums were restricted to remaining on the properties if carrying firearms.
That seemed like a reach - they were trying to question him re: full metal jacket vs hollow point etc.. and he didn't get drawn into it. IIRC it was in relation to the journalist who was present at the first instance or is there another incident the reckless endangerment charge covers?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Yes, and that's a moot point - as none of the others were chased then attacked or threatened.
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.
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.
Neither did the rioters or anyone else out that night... Not really sure what the point is there beyond stating the obvious. I mean maybe if people hadn't burned down those car places the owners wouldn't have asked anyone to help them protect them the second night.
No one needed to be out there protesting in the first place as the thing being protested about was pretty dumb anyway - a sex offender literally turning up at his victim's house (his ex) and threatening her, not stopping after being tasered then being dumb enough to pull a knife on armed police officers... of course, he was black and given the timing the media stirred up some outrage over it.
We don't really need to know how they perceived him tbh.. we just need to know what he faced and whether his actions were reasonable in response and in each case it seems they probably were.
Forget children and "weapons of war" (this was a semi-auto civilian rifle), no one (aside from law enforcement) should be wandering the streets with firearms, unfortunately, it's 'merica and they have silly rules.
Notably, the person who fired first has been charged but the last guy, who had a concealed pistol illegally, hasn't been.
Yup, this "he shouldn't have been there" etc.. is pretty silly as a point, ideally of course he shouldn't but that applies doubly so for the people who attacked him, they definitely shouldn't have been there.
He was there to help with people protecting a local business after spending all day cleaning up the mess those people had created and they were there to riot and start fires.
Any sort of reasonable protest was well over by that point with it being late at night and the police trying to clear the streets, get people to disperse and go home after what had happened the night before.
The people left were basically either rioters/looters and the guys there protecting businesses.
No but no one is making that argument, the argument is simply that he tried to flee and used force in self defence against people who pursued and attacked/threatened him to the point where he was in fear for his life. It’s a pretty basic argument for using lethal force in self defence.
Part of that is simply because of the fragmented network of individual antifa orgs some of which certainly could be considered as such.
[
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!
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!