Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

A. I typed contractionary (not the word I meant to post, but not contradictory)

Why not just clarify what you meant then instead of making a big song and dance of it… What do you mean here? Did you miss the video where Rittenhouse lowers his rifle? Did you miss that he ran away from everyone, that they were the aggressors?

B. The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle.

OK that’s total BS, the guy who fired it is the whole reason Kyle started running FFS! You’re basing your argument on ignorance here. Kyle had an encounter with him, claims he was threatened with the gun and rather than shoot tries to run away, the guy told the paedo to get him and also pursued then fired.

. You can't kill someone because someone else somewhere let's off a gun.

He didn’t, seriously go read the sequence of events as you’re clueless here. The person who fired the gun is still alive and is being charged for firing the gun. Kyle killed someone shortly after because they’d threatened to kill him, chased him down and then caught up with him where he was cornered and apparently tried to grab his rifle… this is after pointing it at them mid pursuit didn’t stop their pursuit.

C. The bit about turning and pointing his gun once before he then turned again and shot him highlights that all he did was likely escalate the situation by directly threatening him back with a deadly weapon.

And he was justified in doing so, like the guy threatened to kill him and then chased after him… so he tried to get him to back off first without using force then it was too late and so he had to escalate further. This was pretty textbook self defence! Of course he escalated, key point is he was also trying to get away too.

Fundamentally we just don't agree. I dont believe that he wanted to kill people and I totally appreciate the self defense arguments. However, I think he was reckless and used excessive force in some instances. He put himself in an inevitably confrontational situation which he was unable to handle in a proportional manner.

You don’t seem to appreciate the self defence arguments though and you’re being vague again, where did he use excessive force? Which incident specifically?

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?

If you’re going to say he shouldn’t have gotten slept up then sure, but if you’re talking about the incidents that occurred then… go ahead, which ones and why.

 

[dowie]

edit - this was a duplicate post

Might as well highlight something re: the firearms charge, even that is a bit uncertain, I'd assumed it might have been a slam dunk for the prosecution however while Kyle has clearly violated the spirit of the law he might not have actually violated the law and seemingly could have been correct in his argument with the DA.

It seems there is a grey area where someone is over 16 but under 18, not just related to hunting either but barrel length etc.. is relevant. Will have to see what the jury instructions are but it might be simply that he's over 16 but under 18 & is the barrel length long enough.

 

[dowie]

Please read what i said again: "The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle."

How was that "BS"?

Here is a bite-sized chunk you just ignored from the post you literally just replied to:

OK that’s total BS, the guy who fired it is the whole reason Kyle started running FFS!

The gun was fired after an encounter between that guy and Kyle, he was following after Kyle and according to Kyle had just threatened him and set Rosenbaum on him.

The gun wasn't fired randomly, it was likely in direct relation to that encounter and pursuit where Kyle proceeded to turn and point his weapon.


Now before you get into your deflection nonsense can you address the below:

You don’t seem to appreciate the self defence arguments though and you’re being vague again, where did he use excessive force? Which incident specifically?

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?

If you’re going to say he shouldn’t have gotten slept up then sure, but if you’re talking about the incidents that occurred then… go ahead, which ones and why.

 

[dowie]

my feeling is the firearms charge will be directed as no law has been broken as listening to the arguments the law is highly ambiguous. The judge said he had looked at it for some time and can’t work it out. Therefore there is no case to answer.

Yeah, that seems quite possible - the discussion around it seemed vague, like how can the judge order the jury to find the "truth" re: the length of the barrel etc.. when that can be objectively measured?

I guess we'll see on Monday.

the whole case will come down to who is the first aggressor, in the fist shooting. Did he point the firearm unjustly before Rosenbaum started running. The prosecution try to use a blurry photo and a drone video to prove he raised his firearm first.

If the first shooting is self defence, it doesn’t matter that others believe he is an active shooter as long as it’s reasonable for him to believe his life is under threat he can continue to act in self defence.

to summarise this all pivots on the justification of the first shooting and who the first aggressor was.

Yup, that seems to be a critical argument by the DA - there is a chance (less likely but still there) he does get a conviction (maybe of a lesser charge) as a result, IF they buy that... But it wouldn't be a very safe conviction at all - can't see how they could find it "beyond reasonable doubt" even if they buy the prosecution line.

The (rather clumsy) technical arguments re: zooming, resolution etc.. do seem kinda relevant too in retrospect, the prosecution are basing their case on some very ambiguous, blurry images of Rittenhouse in order to claim that he pointed his weapon first and that that was sufficient provocation to justify Rosenbaum chasing him. It kinda is the case that every pixel counts there and so blowing up lowe res footage on a 4k screen as they insisted on doing is going to add pixels, smoothing etc.. and if that happened to make the hard to figure out blur look slightly more in their favour then...

The defence had a reasonable rebuttal - he's right-handed IIRC, every other bit of footage seems to show him holding the rifle in his right hand/shoulder but they want to claim that this blurry footage shows him pointing the rifle which, given his stance & the supposed position of the rifle the defence argue would mean he was briefly holding it in his left hand/shoulder there - they, of course, argue that it's the sling they're looking at, which comes across from the left shoulder. All those little pixes count! Though it ought to be a straightforward argument that given how blurry it is the jury can't possibly be convinced of that prosecution argument "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[dowie]

I watched this exchange, it sounds Ludicrous. However by definition they are adding pixels. However they don’t know how Apple or (my guess) Samsung are filling in the gaps. So how can a determination on how accurate this process is made? Is it up to a standard of a criminal trial or is it just a best guess to make it look good.

No idea what the legal standards are, I mean it's not just pinch and zoom but also drone footage shot at maybe SD/DVD quality or HD but being blown up to 4k on the big TV. I'd assume in most cases it is some fairly simple method of upscaling but that's still possible to get an edge with... like we're talking very blurry images so if the DA had looked at the footage at normal resolution, HD and upscaled to 4k and decided that the upscaled 4k footage looked more convincing for his rifle pointing argument then there is the risk of that cherry-picking and use of stuff that isn't necessarily there.

That's before getting into issues where something like a GAN has been used for upscaling, there are certainly apps that make use of them on tablets/phones etc.. but I'm not sure any native functionality does so.

 

[dowie]

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 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.

He didn’t, seriously go read the sequence of events as you’re clueless here. The person who fired the gun is still alive and is being charged for firing the gun. Kyle killed someone shortly after because they’d threatened to kill him, chased him down and then caught up with him where he was cornered and apparently tried to grab his rifle… this is after pointing it at them mid pursuit didn’t stop their pursuit.

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?

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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[dowie]

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.

What a surprise. It's like you've got the attention span of a goldfish (this perhaps explains the basic factual errors made too, you simply haven't paid attention to the case), you see anything longer than a sentence and you call it gish gallop, word salad etc.. and when you're asked to back up an assertion with some reasoning/some sort of argument you back away from doing so - keeping things vague, deflect, sticking to assertions seems to be the go-to defence here to try to avoid criticism - you know full well I've asked about the assertion you made a few times now, you've either selectively ignored it or thrown in an excuse to avoid answering - the reason seems to be obvious, as with your previous deflections you can't actually back up the point.

 

[dowie]

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.

This is hilarious, Kyle was (according to him) threatened with a gun, he's then pursued by both the person with the gun and another person (who ran), he then hears a gunshot... but he has no idea who actually made the bang?

LOL is this actually how you think? You've just been threatened with a gun, you run away from the person and then you have "no idea" where a gunshot behind you came from???

I mean sure, he doesn't know for sure but I think he can have a pretty good guess that the guy who just threatened him with a gun might well have just fired it!

Total cope, it's almost as bad as your previous downplaying attempt where you declared (falsely) that the gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle and took place in a different location.

 

[dowie]

@Dis86
Put as simply as I can, I'm asking you if you think Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 because he believed that it had "limited lethality" rather than looking cool slung over his shoulder to go swanning around.

Eh? This was testified to in court - he claimed he picked it because his friend had the same one, it looked cool and he thought it was legal for him to carry (he also mentioned a pistol would have been more useful, that he'd liked to have had a pistol but that would have been illegal for him to carry + the store they went to didn't have shotguns) - the law isn't clear and it seems Rittenhouse might have a point re: legality and long-barreled rifles.

He's also testified that he didn't intend to kill but to stop the people attacking him.

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.

That's not quite true, the rifle is a civilian version and he bought it for target practice at his friend's firing range. He didn't attend the protest, he attended the locations of a small business the owners of which allegedly invited him and others to attend, the protest had finished, a riot had broken out past curfew/police trying to clear the streets and eventually, some rioters moved towards the location Kyle was at. It seems pretty clear he did act in self-defence, Jono8 will make some weak/vague assertions otherwise re: excessive force etc.. but won't or can't seem to argue why.

As a general point, it's perhaps better to try to address actual arguments that have been presented rather than declare that "the right" holds some position you assert + some other position on an unrelated matter etc..

 

[dowie]

A. There is no proof the gunshot seconds prior to Kyle killing Rosenbaum was anything to with Kyle. I believe Ziminski has just said it was a "warning shot" but with no further documentation on who the warning was for.

LOL total cope yet again... sure he just fired a gun seconds after pointing out Kyle to Rosenbaum and it was nothing to do with Kyle... who claims he was threatened with that very same gun.

Though also worth nothing that Kyle isn't a mind reader nor does he have eyes on the back of his head, he's just been threatened with a gun (his claim) and the guy who threatened him just happened to then fire that gun behind him...

But you're totally reaching and trying to play that down as you've been reaching with various downplaying attempts all through the thread.

Explain what was false please.

I already have, scroll up - you're claiming it had nothing to do with Kyle when you can't support that and you based that claim in part on your own ignorance, named a claim that the gun was fired nowhere near Kyle. I've literally provided you with a direct link to video footage with a timestamp and screenshots that show the gun was fired behind Kyle by the guy who was seconds before right next to him and following after him.

How is this not clear to you:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35237234/

Or just watch this video from 4:40 onwards, your claim that the gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle is highly dubious.

Also, sure enough, you've still not backed up your assertions re: excessive force or provided alternatives, you just ignore.

 

[dowie]

One of the weird results of the dubious reporting of this case is NPC type people on social media keep on repeating some nonsense about state lines, sometimes including a claim that a weapon was transported across state lines (which is pretty well known to be false) and now pivoting to just mentioning that Rittenhouse crossed state lines, as though that has some special relevance here to a case being tried in a county courtroom in Kenosha...

 

[dowie]

Ah i see, so this is all just conjecture on your part then.

LOL nope literary provided screenshots and video evidence to support it

So no, it wasn't false. I said no one shot AT Kyle, and there is no proof that they did. You then weighed in about the chap that fired in the air some way away from him for some reason.

Clearly false, don't try and change the claim afterwards, I clearly quoted what I took issue with and gave a clear explanation of why. You're in denial and deflecting yet again...

Here are two claims I took issue with, nothing to do with whether the gun was fired at Kyle or not as you're now retrospectively trying to claim:


firstly this one is total BS:

The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase,

Anyone can just watch the video from 4:40 onwards and see why it's BS.

Secondly, this one is incredibly dubious/a total reach:

B. The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle. Hearing a gunshot is a terrible thing to even bring into his defense.

The gun was not fired far away and it seems very likely it was to do with Kyle, it was fired by a guy who had literally just had an encounter with Kyle, was alleged to have threatened him with the gun and claimed he was firing a "warning shot"... I mean we can wait until his trial if you like and I can re-quote your nonsense then but it's looking pretty damn likely or is a very odd coincidence and it is certainly BS to claim it is unlikely.

 

[dowie]

How am i changing the claim?

My original claim literally said that no one fired AT him. That is literally what i said. Which is true.

Have you lost the plot?

Have you lost the plot? I've literally quoted what I took issue with, go ahead and show me where I took issue with a claim of the gun being fired at him - you can't because I didn't. I've literally quoted you above:

The gun was fired in a completely different place to the chase,

B. The gun fired was fired fairly far away from him and likely had nothing to do with Kyle. Hearing a gunshot is a terrible thing to even bring into his defense.

You've seen the posts, you're just not paying any attention to detail, those claims are BS, I've shown why they're BS and you now deflect and pretend I've been arguing some other point... classic dishonest Jono8

 

[dowie]

It wasn't false. No one fired at Kyle.

That no one fired at /kyle doesn't mean this statement isn't false, disputing it is by no means a whoopsie! FFS, that is a reach even for you

your claim:

"Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No."

So a mental case chases him down and lunges at him/tries to grab is gun, after one guy threatened him with a gun and then fired it behind him... and then another hits him with a skateboard, someone tried to stomp his head, someone tried to hit him with a skateboard again then also tried to take his rifle and then finally someone feigns a surrender and then moves to point a pistol at him...

And you're claiming none of them were likely to have killed or seriously injured him - you don't think stomping someone or hitting them twice with a skateboard or a psycho trying to grab his gun risks serious injury... you're in denial on that point too in that case.

You also claim to see the self-defence claim, which seems at odds with your claim that non of them were likely to have seriously injured or killed Kyle, how do you justify the self-defence claim then? You're reluctant to provide any arguments to support your assertions there though, liking to keep it vague and non-specific as usual.

None of what i said after was false either. The gunshot was fired in a different place to where the chase had got to at that time. Zaminski was off in a different direction at that point and fired his gun in the air. The video YOU quoted shows the same still i posted and shows the gunshot quite a decent distance from Kyle at the time.

That's just dumb at this point tbh... there is clear video evidence showing it is utterly false, you're in denial now. Zaminski was not "off in a different direction" at that point, he's literally walking across the same lot Kyle just ran across seconds earlier.

 

[dowie]

You can scream into the blue ether of the OCUK forum all you want but it won't make it true.

Nothing I said in that post was false.

Clearly was, and has been shown to be further up the page.

There is literally video evidence of it, you can see the location where the gunshot occurred quite clearly, it's in the same lot, he's less than 50 meters away and had only just threatened Kyle.

And sure enough, you can't now resolve the simultaneous position you hold that none of them was likely to have seriously injured or killed Kyle vs also supporting that there was a self-defence claim... and likewise still missing your explanation on how you also hold that position re: self-defence but also think it was excessive?

 

[dowie]

There is nothing to resolve

I dont doubt Kyle likely thought they would.

You can still act in self defense but go beyond what was necessary in terms of reasonable force.

Sure, but that's still vague... you've been asked already about this and you just ignore it or go into deflection mode - do you think he could have got into a fistfight with the muscly little mental case in the first instance after his rifle was grabbed? (keep in mind there is another psycho with a pistol who had just fired it behind them too and allegedly had just threatened him).

Or what about when the pistol was suddenly pointed at him in the final incident? If he (quite reasonably) believes he's about to be shot then how is shooting someone an excessive reaction?

And the third case, the guy didn't just attack him twice but had grabbed hold of his rifle, his only means of defence against this mob chasing him...

 

[dowie]

So you don't think being kicked in the head has a high risk of serious injury or death? You don't think being hit in the head with a skateboard runs the risk of serious injury or death? amazing

Or indeed potentially being shot with a pistol or having your rifle taken off you by a guy who'd made explicit death threats to you earlier.