Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
So today I read the charge sheet, and the jury's instructions from the judge, I've watched several of the videos of the shootings, the drone video and read some of the evidence, this is what I think of the homicide charges based on what I've seen;
On count one (Rosenbaum, first degree reckless homicide), I think he's guilty.
The reason I think this is because Rosenbaum was unarmed, there's no evidence that he posed a real threat to Rittenhouse's life, Rittenhouse even agreed with the prosecution that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. In mitigation it might be argued that he made threats to kill or chased him or whatever, but that in itself doesn't give Rittenhouse the right to lawful self defense and take the actions he did. In order for Rittenhouse to open fire and kill - his life has to be in danger, or he has to reasonably believe that it's in danger, I don't think it was. Instead of firing he could have made a better attempt to deal with it physically and continue to retreat, he didn't have to kill Rosenbaum, which is where the 'reckless homicide' comes into play and also the disregard for human life, which is central to the charge.
On count four (Huber, First degree intentional homicide / Second degree intentional homicide / First Degree reckless homicide), I think he's guilty of First Degree reckless homicide.
I'm not sure he'll be found guilty of the intentional homicide charges, because I don't think that he intended to kill, but I think he is guilty of reckless homicide. For me it boils down to the disregard for human life on the charge sheet and jury instructions. He fired into Huber (who was unarmed) at point blank range, I think the force used was disproportionate and I don't think his life was in danger. I think he would have gotten a beating, but I don't think he'd have been killed (despite what people were saying) the police were also only 100yds away at the end of the street.
The bottom line for me, is that the force used appears to me to be disproportionate. If Rosenbaum or Huber had guns or knives, or he was actually being shot at, then I think Rittenhouse would have a legitimate argument to use lethal force, but that didn't happen. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag of junk at him, and Huber hit him with a skateboard, Rittenhouse got roughed up but that doesn't justify executing people at point blank range with a rifle.
I'm not going to get dragged into a 10 page argument over any of this, these are just my personal thoughts, I haven't looked at all of the evidence - I'm probably wrong and he'll get aquitted on all charges, I just find the process interesting
On count one (Rosenbaum, first degree reckless homicide), I think he's guilty.
The reason I think this is because Rosenbaum was unarmed, there's no evidence that he posed a real threat to Rittenhouse's life, Rittenhouse even agreed with the prosecution that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. In mitigation it might be argued that he made threats to kill or chased him or whatever, but that in itself doesn't give Rittenhouse the right to lawful self defense and take the actions he did. In order for Rittenhouse to open fire and kill - his life has to be in danger, or he has to reasonably believe that it's in danger, I don't think it was. Instead of firing he could have made a better attempt to deal with it physically and continue to retreat, he didn't have to kill Rosenbaum, which is where the 'reckless homicide' comes into play and also the disregard for human life, which is central to the charge.
On count four (Huber, First degree intentional homicide / Second degree intentional homicide / First Degree reckless homicide), I think he's guilty of First Degree reckless homicide.
I'm not sure he'll be found guilty of the intentional homicide charges, because I don't think that he intended to kill, but I think he is guilty of reckless homicide. For me it boils down to the disregard for human life on the charge sheet and jury instructions. He fired into Huber (who was unarmed) at point blank range, I think the force used was disproportionate and I don't think his life was in danger. I think he would have gotten a beating, but I don't think he'd have been killed (despite what people were saying) the police were also only 100yds away at the end of the street.
The bottom line for me, is that the force used appears to me to be disproportionate. If Rosenbaum or Huber had guns or knives, or he was actually being shot at, then I think Rittenhouse would have a legitimate argument to use lethal force, but that didn't happen. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag of junk at him, and Huber hit him with a skateboard, Rittenhouse got roughed up but that doesn't justify executing people at point blank range with a rifle.
I'm not going to get dragged into a 10 page argument over any of this, these are just my personal thoughts, I haven't looked at all of the evidence - I'm probably wrong and he'll get aquitted on all charges, I just find the process interesting
A balanced view that certain people seem unwilling to agree with.
I think it was said off camera so there's no conclusion to draw from it because it would not take much to cast doubt about him actually being that person.
Mind you it's exactly the kind of evidence that will keep his guilt in the court of public opinion secured for years after the fact regardless of the verdict.
Which is besides the overarching point i was making. If you assume every attack is an attack to seriously injure you/kill you, why does everyone not resort to deadly force (even using their hands/whatever they can find around them)?
I do note that someone having a gun changes the dynamic somewhat. However, i don't think the simple act of having a gun reduces the excuse to use deadly force to such a level that its the first thing you do as soon as you are threatened. That would mean anyone could kill someone if they perceived them to be approaching them in an aggressive manner "i thought they were going to take my gun and execute me your honour!". It isn't reasonable.
I also acknowledge Kyle's situation was more threatening than the rather flippant example above, but I still don't think it rose to the point where he was reasonable in shooting him four times until he was dead, at that point in time.
I really don't know why this is seen as such a strange take. It is literally the prosecution's argument. Unless you buy into all that rubbish and conspiracy about it being a simply political trial that the prosecution knew they had no hope of winning, then its quite clear that the prosecution think he committed a crime and think they have a case, and i would trust the ADA of Wisconsin to know far more about Wisconsin law and self defense than any of the posters in here, myself included.
I think its genuinely an interesting trial on self defense and I do acknoweldge the defenses point of view. For me personally though, I dont think it was lawful self defense.
Oh yea so flawed.
"The bullets perforated Rosenbaum's heart, aorta, pulmonary artery and right lung"
"No intention to kill"
Associate
The fact the kid defended himself from 1 mental pedo, a hero with a skateboard and a creep with a pistol - shows he was no larper?
The root cause was the rioters - scum bags who tried to hijack legitimate protest; and the failure of the authorities to effectively protect people lives and property.
Perhaps some see it differently and feel more of an affinity to one of his victims?
So you're sayinghe was there armed to actively prevent the riot?
And the deaths were a result of that?
It's super odd that you think political standing has anything to do with their views on this case.
I see it as people with common sense vs virtue signalling wetness.
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Pedophile wasnt he?
No one made that assumption though!
It changes it massively, it's not some arsy drunk guy in a bar, it's a rioter who already knows you're open carrying a firearm and is attacking/chasing in spite of that - the threat is entirely different ergo the reference to bar fights is silly.
Do you get that a burglar shoving you when caught by surprise in your own home might warrant being hit quite hard with the bat you brought downstairs or stabbed with a screwdriver etc.. regardless of the fact they "only" shoved you. Ignoring context is silly - no you don't generally get to kill someone in a regular bar fight and no one has argued that you do, if you're legally open carrying a firearm and someone still tries to chase you down and attack you in spite of that... in a riot then yeah you might well be able to justify it, just as you could justify killing a burglar who only shoved you etc..
No it doesn't mean that and again no one has argued that at all. Also note this wasn't the first thing done when he was threatened, you're being silly here as you know full well the first thing he did when threatened was to try and flee, and the next thing he did was to turn around and point the gun/brandish it, not shoot, and carry on trying to flee.
It's not that it's strange it's that you don't seem to be able to explain why. Why didn't it rise to the point where it was reasonable? You've made comparisons to bar fights, now some flippant comparison why not just explain your argument re: this case? Adding in a deliberately flippant comparison doesn't illustrate anything.
What's that got to do with Kyles intention?
The reason is already on record in the trial, go read or watch it and stop embarrassing yourself.
Are you implying the prosecutors also have not explained why?
LOL FML you've actually gone for a variant of "why didn't he shoot him in the leg" (in reverse) in reply to a post mentioning that fallacy...
So can I ask anyone who considers themselves a "reasonable person" normal back of the omnibus type.
What is the possible and probbale outcome of arming yourself as a civilian and proceeding to attempt to stop a riot in another town?
My view is that almost certainly a rioters will attack me and try to take my weapon.
With a gun it then becomes likely you have to kill them before they use your weapon to kill you.
So by a quick minutes reasoning traveling to the riot to act as a lone vigilante will probbaly end in death or injury.
Is that a reasonable train of thought?
Or is anyone thinking that a different outcome was likely or that this outcome was completely unexpected and unpredictable?
What is the possible and probbale outcome of arming yourself as a civilian and proceeding to attempt to stop a riot in another town?
My view is that almost certainly a rioters will attack me and try to take my weapon.
With a gun it then becomes likely you have to kill them before they use your weapon to kill you.
So by a quick minutes reasoning traveling to the riot to act as a lone vigilante will probbaly end in death or injury.
Is that a reasonable train of thought?
Or is anyone thinking that a different outcome was likely or that this outcome was completely unexpected and unpredictable?
I've not implied anything about the prosecutors... are you deflecting yet again? Why are you unable to articulate any sort of argument here. It's all assertions and analogies then straight into deflection/avoidance when asked why...