Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

muon said:
I've read the entire thread. Is that a point that should be left alone because it has been mentioned previously?

It's a very important point that shouldn't be buried. It paints a picture as to what was happening on the day.
.
Click to expand...


It was mentioned a few times.
How did you miss them?

The charge for the gun is a misdemeanor. So don't put to much weight in to that.
 
timmeh said:
He shot and killed someone who would still be alive if he hadn’t decided to go out larping and antagonising people. He then ran away from some people who were trying to apprehend him and shot 2 more people

You can’t just go out trying to trigger people, shoot someone who you successfully triggered and then play the victim, that isn’t how it works.
Click to expand...

"apprehend"

You mean a mob that would likely beat him to within an inch of his life or possibly kill him.
 
dowie said:
I’m not sure it does. It seems to be a bag containing a bottle (or maybe a brick or something?).
Click to expand...

Yeap thats now been confirmed after my initial post said "After having a Molotov cocktail or similar incendiary device thrown at him" which I used as as we weren't 100% sure at the time what sort of flaming object was thrown at the time.The important part was that the thrown object was on fire as can be seen in the video yet Andrew said this was false.

dowie said:
It’s not particularly important though - main thing is that he was being chased by someone trying to physically attack him and - he was trying to avoid the attack and got cornered.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with the rest of the post, personally I think it might be more important than you expect as it is physical proof that the guy chasing him was 100% intent on causing him harm, rather than the narrative that he only wanted to disarm him. That evidence of harmful intent will massively increase the shooters ability to claim Self Defense over what I think is an already firm claim to it.
 
Just got banned from a twitch channel called Central_commitee because I dared to have an opposing view on this subject, it really makes me appreciate this place and how we can have a debate without anyone being silenced.
 
Johno please? said:
Just got banned from a twitch channel called Central_commitee because I dared to have an opposing view on this subject, it really makes me appreciate this place and how we can have a debate without anyone being silenced.
Click to expand...

Twitch is a trash platform, and again a lot of streamers just curate their own echo chambers by banning anything that goes against whatever they are saying.

This forum seems to be one of last places I use where I see vastly different opinions. Reddit is more of the same, echo chambers.
 
ianh said:
Please stay factual. The video evidence given in the link I provided shows that it was lit. Did you watch the video before claiming it wasn't lit?

Again, please stay factual. The "Threat to life" justification you use repeatedly is not the only justification to invoke Self Defense. As shown in the US "Self Defense definition" I provided, it says that a person may "When the use of deadly force is involved in a self defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death" - so if the shooter sees an action which they "reasonably believe" could inflict "great bodily harm" to them (and not solely a "threat to life" as you've posted) then they can "claim" Self Defense. However at that point it is now up to the Police to investigate, the DA to prosecute and finally the court & jury system to make the final decision on whether that "claim" is actually justified, which is correct.

So in this case, as per my initial post, in every case where the shooter fired he can say that he "reasonably believed" an action which could inflict "great bodily harm" to him was about to occur, allowing him to make the Self Defense "claim", at which time the above mentioned investigation, prosecution and courts then take over to see if the "claim" was actually justified.

Again, please stay factual. I have never said that "man who is following him with a gun" was a "greater threat" than the shooter himself was so I'm confused as to where in my post you believe I've stated or implied that the "pistol" guy was a "greater threat" than the shooter. If you could explain what made you think I said that I'll gladly clear up any misunderstanding.

Once more, please stay factual. You said that I'm "ignoring the vigilante premeditated nature of the crime..............." which is given as a statement of fact. It is not, it is only your opinion of the event and not a fact. Your opinion hasn't been proved to true or false in a court yet so please try to remember not to confuse opinions with facts. Regarding my "ignoring" of any alleged vigilantism, I specifically gave my opinion about it in my last paragraph and gave the reasons why in my opinion I didn't believe it was a vigilante case but as mentioned above, my opinion is also just an opinion and not a fact, however I haven't phrased my opinion as a direct statement of fact i.e. I have said "I think he......" etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned, I've very happy to debate but please stay factual when making claims otherwise the discussion is useless.
Click to expand...

Stop the gaslighting condencending nonsense with the 'stay factual' because we disagree about the essense of the facts because you want to force the narative.

Yes I've watched it twice now, it doesn't look lit at all. The lighting is all over the place, but if it was lit, there'd be fire everywhere.

From what I've read, arguments of self defense have to be made by the defense team. It's for them to prove it actually was self defense. The defense have to make the argument that the first man walking towards Rittenhouse posed a threat to his life and/or greater bodily harm. I wouldn't think walking into someones personal space is a threat to either. Perhaps taking his gun was a thread, but how close was this to happening? Was shooting this man 4 times a reasonable response? Legally it's not him believing it's a reasonable response. I'm sure Hitler, thought invading all of Europe was reasonable in his mind. It's whether his peers agree his action was reasonable and warranted action.

Let's look at the definition of vigilante shall we:
  1. a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
You don't think a group coming in to 'protect local businesses' and carrying killing machines in their hands aren't vigilantes? They're surely the definition of vigilantes.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Twitch is a trash platform, and again a lot of streamers just curate their own echo chambers by banning anything that goes against whatever they are saying.

This forum seems to be one of last places I use where I see vastly different opinions. Reddit is more of the same, echo chambers.
Click to expand...
Yeah it gets a bit petty and personal sometimes but it's good to be challenged by others without biased censorship. I'm not sure I'll ever understand some people's positions on some topics but it's healthy to see all sides of a debate.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Yup - the whole thing is nuts... in fact it does open up to situations where say the guy with the handgun perhaps has a claim to shoot the kid and the kid has a claim to defend himself...

There have been incidents in the US, using castle doctrine or stand your ground where both parties(or indeed multiple parties attacking each other) in a shooting have been found not guilty on the grounds of each of them acting in some manner of self defence....
Click to expand...

This is the trouble with violence such as this. For all we know those two people approaching him who were shot after he killed the first guy may well argue they were trying to disarm an active shooter who had just killed someone (well , not one of them because he is dead..)

In some situations, the people chasing down and disarming someone who had just opened fire on people and killed someone would be hailed as heroes.

Things can escalate so quickly when shots are fired, especially when they involve armed 17 year old kids .
 
Last edited:
Narj said:
That would be all well and good if the protesters weren't tooled up. It's pretty obvious it's going to be a violent situation.
Click to expand...

That reads a bit too much like the ol' saying of "I've got a gun because they (a few of them) have guns".
But we all know that's complete ******** as the majority of us don't walk around the capital with machetes/'zombie knives' under our coats because a few (wannabe) gangsters do the same.

To be honest, this is the exact issue with America (AT4 into a Subway shop) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

PCFfOku.jpg
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
Stop the gaslighting condescending nonsense with the 'stay factual' because we disagree about the essence of the facts because you want to force the narrative.
Click to expand...

My "narrative" is that the shooter shouldn't have been there in the first place and would therefore never have shot anyone, everything else I talk about is only attempting to give an explanation of what can be/can't be claimed as Self Defense from the shooters actions. However, from the response you've given it looks like you might think I agree with what the shooter did? If you do think that you would be wrong, if you don't then sorry for my mistake.

ANDREW GREEN said:
Yes I've watched it twice now, it doesn't look lit at all. The lighting is all over the place, but if it was lit, there'd be fire everywhere.
Click to expand...

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if the evidence later on shows the bag wasn't on fire and I'll quote you so you can see that I stick by my word as I think getting to the truth is the most important thing here. However you've asked me to stop saying "stay factual" above but then you then follow up by saying this....

ANDREW GREEN said:
The defense have to make the argument that the first man walking towards Rittenhouse posed a threat to his life and/or greater bodily harm. I wouldn't think walking into someone's personal space is a threat to either.
Click to expand...

The video evidence that I provided shows the victim firstly throwing a item at the shooter (showing what the shooter could argue is an intent to do harm) and then "running" after him, not walking as you claim. So again......please stay factual :)

ANDREW GREEN said:
Perhaps taking his gun was a threat, but how close was this to happening?
Click to expand...

The video provided shows that the first victim got to within a few feet of the shooter (less than 6ft) before the shooter (who was facing away) turned and fired until the victim dropped to the floor.

ANDREW GREEN said:
Was shooting this man 4 times a reasonable response? Legally it's not him believing it's a reasonable response.
Click to expand...

The idea of Self Defense in US law for most states (but not all) is that you can use deadly force until you no longer feel under threat of great bodily harm or death, but that you must only use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve that goal. I think that might be a possible reason why the later victims were only shot once, because the shooter immediately stopped considering them to be a threat, yet the first victim was shot multiple times as the shooter felt he was a threat until the victim he fell over. Although TBF that is just pure guesswork on my behalf and could just be my over-active imagination putting my 20+ years of military "shoot/don't shoot & minimum force" training in the shooters shoes, for all I know he hasn't got a clue about minimum force etc and it was just "luck" that he didn't shoot the victims more times but we'll see what he was thinking when he gives evidence during his trial.
 
visibleman said:
That reads a bit too much like the ol' saying of "I've got a gun because they (a few of them) have guns".
But we all know that's complete ******** as the majority of us don't walk around the capital with machetes/'zombie knives' under our coats because a few (wannabe) gangsters do the same.

To be honest, this is the exact issue with America (AT4 into a Subway shop) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

PCFfOku.jpg
Click to expand...

I hope he got a foot long.
 
garnett said:
Looking like this was the call to arms that drew a lot of the Trump crowd to Kenosha...
Click to expand...

Problem with criticising facebook over this is that these two deaths are two out of 30+, if they believe that any calls condoning violence or encouraging gatherings of people that might lead to violence should be banned then FB would need to take down a whole load of BLM, Antifa groups and ban various supporters who are condoning violence, looting etc.. there were various CHAS/CHOP accounts happily posting away and they had heavily armed "security" too... resulted in several shooting events inc deaths. I don't recall her criticising the lack of action behind the Seattle based antifa, BLM etc.. accounts.

ANDREW GREEN said:
From what I've read, arguments of self defense have to be made by the defense team. It's for them to prove it actually was self defense. The defense have to make the argument that the first man walking towards Rittenhouse posed a threat to his life and/or greater bodily harm. I wouldn't think walking into someones personal space is a threat to either. Perhaps taking his gun was a thread, but how close was this to happening? Was shooting this man 4 times a reasonable response?
Click to expand...

Have you watched the footage of both that event and the behaviour of this guy you claim "walked" towards him, no he didn't shoot him because he invaded his personal space, he wasn't walking either - he was pursued and attacked by this guy who then tried to grab his firearm - I'd be quite surprised if that didn't have an obvious self defence element to it. In fact I do wonder if some of the charges might well be dropped or reduced prior to trial.

Trying to pretend this is just an issue of someone walking into his person space is frankly disengenous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom