Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

kindai said:
Except its not, when you have been separated from your group, are alone, and part of the mob has threatened you and started a confrontation, you cant reasonably know the intent or mindset of more of that mob. To suggest otherwise is absolutely foolish.

To suggest that someone is capable of that level of hindsight while you have a big dude chasing your ass down after threatening to kill you is even more absurd to the point I think youre just trolling rather than holding this as a legitimate point of view.



He was separated from his group. That can change the dynamic of safety dramatically.


But heres a picture none the less.

At best, his option was to run through the "thin" section, but this is said with hindsight, not in the heat of the moment with some angry dude chasing you down after threatening to kill you.


2021-11-18-18-18-07-kyle-rittenhouse-drone-04-jpg-WEBP-Image-2000-1113-pixels-Mozilla-Firefox.png
Click to expand...

This just demonstrates he had plenty of avenues to keep running.

I also still don't think the argument that anyone else around him was a possible threat to him is at all convincing - "I wasn't sure if the people ahead of me were going to be angry at me as well so i just decided to turn and shoot him".....?
 
There's no accountability on the deceased man for trying to attack Kyle, it's Kyle's job to find an escape route!

BLM supporters there to defend the racist dead white guy ?????????????????
 
Jono8 said:
This just demonstrates he had plenty of avenues to keep running.
Click to expand...


Are you legitimately for real "plenty of avenues"? Excuse me what?

Explain in detail how either running back towards the people who started attacking you, or pushing through more of that angry mob is "plenty of avenues".

How about you man up to the fact he had the full right to defend himself and he did so, it was the stupid idiot chasing him at fault.

No normal person sound of mind would agree with you.
 
Jono8 said:
lol at "man up"

and also, no. I do not agree that he acted in lawful self defense.
Click to expand...

Stop avoiding and answer my question. Ill quote it again:

kindai said:
Explain in detail how either running back towards the people who started attacking you, or pushing through more of that angry mob is "plenty of avenues".
Click to expand...

The actual fact is, for all intents at that point in time, all the continued avenues of escape were blocked by hostiles or objects.
 
Jono8 said:
This just demonstrates he had plenty of avenues to keep running.

I also still don't think the argument that anyone else around him was a possible threat to him is at all convincing - "I wasn't sure if the people ahead of me were going to be angry at me as well so i just decided to turn and shoot him".....?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rittenhouse retreating from Rosenbaum immediately after another person (carelessly) discharged their firearm several times into the air? I don't know about you, but if someone is having a go at me, and the person next to them started firing live rounds into the air, I'm not hanging around and would 100% be fearful for my safety.

The other viewpoint that needs understanding, which is what gets drilled into American Police, is that if someone with a firearm gets disarmed, it is highly likely that weapon will then be used against them. Putting aside whether he put himself in the situation or not, a 17 year old holding something long and cumbersome will not stow said item to then throw a punch in self defence against a quickly closing, and much larger adversary. To say otherwise is being blinkered in my opinion.
 
Jono8 said:
I don't agree with your assertion that the "angry mob" were even aware of or bothered with Kyle at this point.
Click to expand...
Whether they were or not is almost irrelevant. He does not know the intention of said grouping of people. Going towards / through them could be as much as dangerous as staying where he was. He backed up and backed up until his back, metaphorically, was against the wall.
 
Jono8 said:
I don't agree with your assertion that the "angry mob" were even aware of or bothered with Kyle at this point.
Click to expand...

Hahaha so your whole claim is based on the fact that he should have run into a very large mob of rioters who have been violent and threatening through the entire night?
 
Caracus2k said:
You just can't get around the block in your brain that in the "99.9% of examples you cite that one of the parties involved isn't carrying a semi automatic rifle and as such there is no comparison to be made.

Charge at a sole regular UK cop you have threatened to kill and you may get a baton strike or two and maybe a face full of CS for your stupidity.

Do the same to a sole armed cop and you may find yourself on the receiving end of a bullet or two.

It's not the cops fault in the second scenario that she or he was lawfully carrying a gun and had to react accordingly.
Click to expand...

You can't get your head around that i believe that killing someone at the first sign they might be a threat or that you have the perception that they want to take your rifle and execute you with it is not reasonable.

That brings the burden for someone to use deadly force reasonably ridiculously low. Where do you draw the line on what is perceived as a reasonable threat?
 
kindai said:
Hahaha so your whole claim is based on the fact that he should have run into a very large mob of rioters who have been violent and threatening through the entire night?
Click to expand...

Assuming that the people he was running towards had been in anyway threatening to Kyle (i disagree with your presumption there)...before turning and just killing someone? Yes.
 
Jono8 said:
Assuming that the people he was running towards had been in anyway threatening to Kyle (i disagree with your presumption there)...before turning and just killing someone? Yes.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there's a bit of preconception on your part that he intended to kill him. As far as I'm aware from his own testimony, that's not the case. He discharged his weapon, probably in a panic, to stop someone attacking him that was a real threat. If someone twice the size of you was running at you, and you were cornered, you wouldn't preemptively throw a punch, kick, anything? You'd stand there and wait for whoever this assailant is to make the first physical contact? Genuine question, because I can understand your viewpoint, but just want to be clear that you believe his intention was to kill Rosenbaum?
 
Jono8 said:
perception that they want to take your rifle and execute you with it is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

We are officially in clown world!

the whole concept of self defence from common law, that is the basis of English law and that was exported to the states and forms the basis of the concept of self defence in their law, is that it is the perception of the person accused as to whether they were under threat.

The test is whether their perception was reasonable in the circumstances ( even if their perception was mistaken)

When a person threatens to kill you, chases after you and lunges at you it's entirely reasonable to react by shooting them with the gun you are holding.
 
bJN said:
Perhaps there's a bit of preconception on your part that he intended to kill him. As far as I'm aware from his own testimony, that's not the case. He discharged his weapon, probably in a panic, to stop someone attacking him that was a real threat. If someone twice the size of you was running at you, and you were cornered, you wouldn't preemptively throw a punch, kick, anything? You'd stand there and wait for whoever this assailant is to make the first physical contact? Genuine question, because I can understand your viewpoint, but just want to be clear that you believe his intention was to kill Rosenbaum?
Click to expand...

He wasn't cornered. HE slowed and HE turned and HE used deadly force. That is largely the problem, and i would bring that back to the jury instructions i quoted earlier.

I also dispute any notion that Kyle didn't intend to kill him in that moment. He shot him four times with an AR15 at close range.

I do believe he acted in self defense, but not in a reasonable or lawful way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom