I don't think you agree with the use of deadly force to defend yourself
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I don't think you agree with the use of deadly force to defend yourself
I would in some circumstances. Just not this one.
So at what point does it become reasonable then?
Because you have consistently weasled your way out of actually answering perfectly justifiable questions like this.
What would have happened had Rosenbaum caught up with Kyle and he acted as you claim he should have?
So to focus down on this, what would have been reasonable? Sorry if that's covering ground already well trodden, but in that exact situation, what would have been a reasonable level of force in your opinion? I could accept a viewpoint that he was cornered by his own doing; but I would still say for all intents and purposes he was cornered - you can't navigate between tightly parked vehicles with any ease or haste in my experience.
I would see using deadly force as complete and utter last resort, especially against an unarmed person. In that moment, i do not believe that was Kyle's last resort. HE slowed and HE turned.
But my argument is that i do not think slowing, turning and shooting Rosenbaum was his only option/last resort at that time. There were other routes other than the parked cars (ie to the right of him), and i also don't believe the parked cars were that "tightly" parked to stop him moving through them from how we see him moving through them afterwards.
If he was genuinely cornered, I would probably look differently on the situation.
Yes you will generally slow when you go to turn.
Do you really think Kyle could out run Rosebaum whilst carrying his rifle?
What do you imagine happens if the assailant catches up with you whilst you have your backed turned to them?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,006
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Ha ha MSNBC you bunch of plonkers!
HE was the one being chased HE was the one who had been part of the group threatened by the male doing the chasing who had said he would "***ing kill" any of them he manged to find alone.
Any person with the slightest semblance of reason and common sense knows that you don't let someone physically larger than you, who has already threatened to kill you, chased after you and who lunged at you continue to the point where you will be phyiscally wrestling over the rifle you are carrying and as such be unable to use it in any form of controlled fashion. You also don't continue to run away from them if they are persisting with the chase and likely to catch up with you from behind.
Rittenhouse was quite justified to face his assailant and defend himself.
This tired trope comes out time and time again with police shootings.
You shoot until the threat is neutralised. That's the intent "to neutralise the threat to yourself or another"
Not with deadly force, at that moment, in my (and the prosecution's) opinion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Where did I say that you could? The first part is about people just walking the streets of a town or city with weapons on show which is nuts and why people wouldn't engage them. It could have course easily lead to the, if everyone had a gun then there would be less deaths argument. Which would simply not be true.
The second paragraph was clearly about the UK and how if people felt threatened on a Friday/Saturday night out and so killed the other person we would rightly call it insanity. Just because you feel threatened shouldn't give someone the right to kill.
So you'd keep running? That's a perfectly fair way to deal with it. Kyle chose to try and de-escalate, or if you'd prefer, force cooperation, by stopping the first time and turning with his gun shouldered. At this point Rosenbaum is around 10-15 metres away, and he pauses. When Kyle turns and continues to run, and Rosenbaum immediately chases, the next time Kyle sees him is when he has slowed to navigate between the vehicles, turned, and Rosenbaum is within touching distance - with, from what I can make out from the videos, his arm outstretched for the rifle. He has instinctively fired. I'm not saying that's the correct response, or even a calculated response, it was instinct. You don't expect someone who is openly hostile to you to go from being 10m away to being immediately in front of you in the space of four seconds and not, at the very least, make you jump. So my next question, if you place yourself in his shoes in that exact moment of turning and seeing someone hell bent on causing you harm is now a fraction of a second away from you; what is your reasonable use of force to get out of the situation? I'm not trying to be an arse, just genuinely curious because I can kind of get where you're coming from.
Yes... and then it's pointed out that people having fights in clubs aren't usually carrying guns - do you not see why pointing out that a regular fist gith would tend not to result in death whereas attacking someone armed likely will do, especially if you carry on trying to attack them after they've retreated. It's rather inane to point out that fights in clubs don't tend to result in deaths, they're fist fights!
On the other hand, riots do sometimes result in deaths, it's not that uncommon, there were several deaths already in that summer's rioting by the time this incident occurred.
I think this argument is somewhat moot as he's not actually obliged to carry on running. An argument based on this idea you have that he could have carried on running even further after already having made an effort to retreat isn't a very good argument against his right to self-defence.
He chose to travel armed into a highly charged and potentialy violent situation where any reasonable person could have predicted this outcome.
If he had wanted to de-escalate he could have stayed home instead of LARPing die hard and people wouldn't be dead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
In my 51 years I've never heard (or read) someone call in question men's masculinity and how they aren't "man enough" like Roar, it is one of his favourite lines, why the obsession with people's masculinity? Its odd to say the least.
I'm surprised we've not had the old "why didn't he shoot him in the leg" line to add to all the other flawed arguments like that.
I don't get why this case is so devisive/making so many right wingers froth. Is it because you like the idea of military action/militias? Lots of posts would indicate as such. Of course it was 'self defence' but the fact the kid LARPed in the first place was the real root cause. A balanced view would say 'ya sure self defence but he really put himself in a dumb situation'.
Totally unclear on the devout love you right wingers are giving this guy. Did you want to be action men growing up as well? Living out your best life in a LARPer?
Super odd.
Totally unclear on the devout love you right wingers are giving this guy. Did you want to be action men growing up as well? Living out your best life in a LARPer?
Super odd.