Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Has anyone heard some actual content from Kyle's panel discussion at the AmericaFest? I was looking and can't find any. He was being interviewed by the execrable Jack Posobiec, and there were two others on the panel.

Here you go, a brief clip:

KYLE RITTENHOUSE: ACCOUNTABILITY IS COMING

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This young man seems to really be enjoying himself.

[zooterkin]

Several posts moved to AAH. Please keep to the topic of the thread. If you have nothing to say about the ongoing adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse, then this is not the thread for you post in.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:zooterkin

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Here you go, a brief clip:

KYLE RITTENHOUSE: ACCOUNTABILITY IS COMING

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This young man seems to really be enjoying himself.

That's what I said!

Originally Posted by plague311

I know he said that the media was going to pay for the reporting they had on him. Which I'm excited to see.

I'm trying to figure this out though. What exactly is he going to sue for? Who is he going to sue?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Here you go, a brief clip:


This young man seems to really be enjoying himself.

Thanks for that.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by cmikes

I don't understand all the "well he just wanted to kill someone" slander in this or the trial thread. When Rittenhouse was ambushed by Rosenbaum and the others, his reaction wasn't "Alright, Cleetus (I assume all rednecks in progressive imaginations name their guns Cleetus), we finally get to kill some people!"

The idea that he "wanted to kill someone" likely comes from 2 sources:

1) The video (that was not shown at trial) where he talked about shooting people that were exiting a store (suggesting, with no evidence, that they were "shoplifting")

2) The whole logic behind why he was there in the first place. He had no authority to arrest people engaged in violence. He had no particular abilities as a paramedic (to help injured people), or as a firefighter (to help prevent damage). All he had was his surrogate penis gun. So he decided to put himself in a situation where the only thing he could do to make a difference is shoot people.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Underground906

He's not a hero in the traditional sense in my eyes. But his actions have had the impact of one, I would wager.

The impact of Rittenhouse's actions will be wet dreams among the MAGAchud.

Quote:

The Left, with these Antifa types, have been becoming increasing warped and violent over many years.

The majority of terrorist activities in the U.S. have come from those on the far-right.

From: CSIS
...far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years.

Any attempts to point out "look how bad the political left is" should be seen as nothing more than a way to divert attention from the real problems.

And yes, there were widespread protests/riots last year. Those tended to be brought on due to police/court actions (whereas minorities were treated much harsher than white people). Its less a case of "look at the left wingers going nuts" and more a case of "the left-wingers are finally addressing a major problem in society".

(I should also point out that much of the violence/vandalism did not originate from people engaging in legitimate protests, but by people attempting to use the protests as cover to engage in their own destructive tendencies.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Underground906

He's not a hero in the traditional sense in my eyes. But his actions have had the impact of one, I would wager.

The Left, with these Antifa types, have been becoming increasing warped and violent over many years. It fact Leftism as it is today, maliciously carving up people into victim and oppressor groups to create ill feeling, division, gain power, drag others down, is simply a front for every anti-social, screwed up, angry nutjob, weirdo, and pyscho to outwardly claim some kind of validity to their unhinged, extremist, hate-filled existence.

The **** do these vermin think they are? They they can go around and riot and beat people up and point guns at them. Attack them enmasse.

Well have it. But you can no-longer be surprised if instant karma firmly strikes back and the law will back the right side in court - the victims of these despicable, delusional people.

It's been on the rise for a long-time, this incredible evil from political extremist and fanatics, having their politics championed in the media, the education system, and elsewhere, which has just been emboldening them further.

Kyle defending himself and that being lawful in the US, as a Brit, my love of and admiration for the US could not get any hire. A nation that still possesses a backbone when it comes to the enslaught of dangerously brainwashed, politically extreme, cognitively-stunted cretins.

Edited by zooterkin:

Edited for rule 10. Do not partially mask any swear words, type them in full and let the autocensor take care of it.

Neat speech, Mr. Chamberlin.
Sorry, might have misspelled Quisling.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

Neat speech, Mr. Chamberlin.
Sorry, might have misspelled Quisling.

You're proving his point.

[Sideroxylon]

Facists referring to people as vermin. Where have we seen that before?

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The idea that he "wanted to kill someone" likely comes from 2 sources:

1) The video (that was not shown at trial) where he talked about shooting people that were exiting a store (suggesting, with no evidence, that they were "shoplifting")

So at a different time, in a different situation, under different circumstances, he said something? ...OK So it wasn't anything like, "Man, I really hope someone threatens to kill me, then tries to carry out that threat, while attacking me with a club, kicking me in the face, and running towards me with a gun pointing at my head, all while I'm trying to get away to safety.
That would be awesome!"?

Quote:

2) The whole logic behind why he was there in the first place. He had no authority to arrest people engaged in violence. He had no particular abilities as a paramedic (to help injured people), or as a firefighter (to help prevent damage). All he had was his surrogate penis gun. So he decided to put himself in a situation where the only thing he could do to make a difference is shoot people.

I agree it was poor judgement, and Rittenhouse has admitted as much in interviews. Once the local politicians had decided that the town was to be a sacrifice on the altar of BLM, and telling the police not to interfere, that BLM was being allowed to do whatever they wished and that the police could go in the next day to try to pick up the pieces and the fire department could go in and hose down the ashes, there really was nothing to be done.

But I still think it's understandable that people would try to protect their town, whether they were qualified or not. I know that if my house was on fire, and the fire department wouldn't be coming, I would be trying to save it even if all I had was a garden house and a bucket. Or my neighbor's house, for that matter.

And poor judgement isn't illegal. If a woman goes out to a skeezy bar by herself and gets blind drunk, that's showing poor judgement. If that woman gets raped, though, it's still zero percent her fault, and still one hundred percent the fault of the animal that raped her. Just because in your view Rittenhouse wasn't accomplishing anything by trying to protect his town in no way justifies Rosenbaum and the others trying to kill him.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by cmikes

But I still think it's understandable that people would try to protect their town, whether they were qualified or not. I know that if my house was on fire, and the fire department wouldn't be coming, I would be trying to save it even if all I had was a garden house and a bucket. Or my neighbor's house, for that matter.
.......
Just because in your view Rittenhouse wasn't accomplishing anything by trying to protect his town in no way justifies Rosenbaum and the others trying to kill him.

Kyle's town was 20 miles away and not on fire.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Kyle's town was 20 miles away and not on fire.

His father and his father's family live in Kenosha, and he worked there. He wasn't a stranger.

I know for a lot of foreigners, the whole "he crossed state lines" was a thing, but in the US that's not a big deal. I've lived in one state while working in another when I was younger. There's no checkpoints or guard shacks, you don't have to stop and present your papers to any border guards, it's just a sign on the highway.

How far away from your place of residence or work should you be allowed to care about, in your opinion?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Kyle's town was 20 miles away and not on fire.

People act like 20 miles is equal in distance to the circumference of the equator.

[RolandRat]

This is morphing into a rehash of the trial thread.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by cmikes

And poor judgement isn't illegal.

Heh. It is if it's a decision to do something illegal.

But what Rittenhouse did wasn't poor judgement. It was risky, but paid off bigtime in the end. He got to act out his fantasies and kill people for real without being punished - something many people want to do but can't get away with. Now he's a celebrity and a darling of the Right, with continuing fame and fortune if he plays his cards right. That's no more poor judgement than Elon Musk sinking all his money in Tesla or Trump running for president.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Heh. It is if it's a decision to do something illegal.

True, but irrelevant in this case.

Quote:

But what Rittenhouse did wasn't poor judgement. It was risky, but paid off bigtime in the end. He got to act out his fantasies and kill people for real without being punished - something many people want to do but can't get away with. Now he's a celebrity and a darling of the Right, with continuing fame and fortune if he plays his cards right. That's no more poor judgement than Elon Musk sinking all his money in Tesla or Trump running for president.

Then maybe you can answer the question that no one else has managed to. If Rittenhouse was looking forward to acting out his fantasies and killing people, why didn't he? Why was first reaction when ambushed to run towards the police line and try to get away from the people trying to kill him?

If anything, a case could easily be made that he waited to long to start defending himself. Rosenbaum directly threatened to kill him or any of the other people trying to defend the town if he caught them alone. He was also inches from grabbing Rittenhouse's gun away from him. Does anyone honestly believe that Rosenbaum would have hesitated to shoot Rittenhouse if he had gotten the gun?

Anthony Huber struck Rittenhouse twice with his skateboard and knocked him to the ground. Either one of those blows could easily have been disabling, leaving Rittenhouse at the "mercy" of violent thugs destroying a city.

Same with Maurice Freeland, the man who attempted to kick Rittenhouse in the face with heavy work boots. Rittenhouse managed to get his arm up between the boot and his face, but if hadn't, how long do you think Rittenhouse would have lasted after he was unconscious?

And finally, Gaige Grosskreutz had a handgun pointed directly at Rittenhouse's head when he was shot in the arm. If Rittenhouse wouldn't have shot first, we wouldn't be having this thread and most of the people in this and the trial thread currently decrying self defense would be defending Grossfreutz's rights to self defense since he's a revolutionary and belongs to a group that wants to destroy America.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

This is morphing into a rehash of the trial thread.

There's apparently still people that don't accept the jury verdict, and the trial's over, so it probably wouldn't be appropriate to continue the discussion in that sub-forum.

[Warp12]

Rittenhouse sits down with Steven Crowder:

Kyle Rittenhouse Roasts Crowder and Dave! | Louder With Crowder

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Rittenhouse claims to like women with "big tits". He seems like a romantic, tbh. Maybe he will get a gig with eHarmony.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by cmikes

True, but irrelevant in this case.

Agreed. In this case the action was found by the court to not be illegal.

Quote:

Then maybe you can answer the question that no one else has managed to. If Rittenhouse was looking forward to acting out his fantasies and killing people, why didn't he?

I'm confused. Are you saying he didn't kill anyone?

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Warp12

People act like 20 miles is equal in distance to the circumference of the equator.

No, but more than a light morning jogging distance definitely turns defense into hunting.
Any openly carried gun, ( long guns not slung over a shoulder count,) carried into a crowd is assault with a deadly weapon and should be met with deadly force.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I'm confused. Are you saying he didn't kill anyone?

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed. His first response to the four people trying to ambush and kill him wasn't "Alright, my dream has come true, I get to kill people" and start blasting away, it was to run away from the people attempting to murder him towards the police line.

The irony is, for all the Sturm und Drang of people being outraged because some BLM members were prevented from killing someone they wanted dead, this was a bog standard case of self-defense. Rittenhouse's actions would have been ruled self-defense even in progressive states that have a "duty to retreat" clause before being allowed to defend yourself because he tried to run away after the initial ambush. It was only after being cut off from safety and knocked to the ground that he started to defend himself rather than run away, which is odd behavior if the whole reason he was there was to kill people.

And of course, this completely ignores to culpability of the people attempting to kill Rittenhouse. If they had simply returned to setting things on fire and destroying property after the initial assault on Rittenhouse, nothing further would have happened. It had been made clear that section of town was being abandoned to the tender mercies of BLM, so they had nothing to fear from the police. But they didn't just want Rittenhouse to stop putting out the fires they had been setting, they wanted him dead. As Rosenbaum put it earlier that night, "If I catch any of you [people trying to protect the town] alone, I'll kill you". Apparently, he recruited some other people to carry out his threat.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's more than a little bit dated, and certainly doesn't speak to the issue of Antifa.

Actual antifa or all the BS the right blames on the antifa straw man?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by cmikes

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed. His first response to the four people trying to ambush and kill him wasn't "Alright, my dream has come true, I get to kill people" and start blasting away, it was to run away from the people attempting to murder him towards the police line.

The irony is, for all the Sturm und Drang of people being outraged because some BLM members were prevented from killing someone they wanted dead, this was a bog standard case of self-defense. Rittenhouse's actions would have been ruled self-defense even in progressive states that have a "duty to retreat" clause before being allowed to defend yourself because he tried to run away after the initial ambush. It was only after being cut off from safety and knocked to the ground that he started to defend himself rather than run away, which is odd behavior if the whole reason he was there was to kill people.

And of course, this completely ignores to culpability of the people attempting to kill Rittenhouse. If they had simply returned to setting things on fire and destroying property after the initial assault on Rittenhouse, nothing further would have happened. It had been made clear that section of town was being abandoned to the tender mercies of BLM, so they had nothing to fear from the police. But they didn't just want Rittenhouse to stop putting out the fires they had been setting, they wanted him dead. As Rosenbaum put it earlier that night, "If I catch any of you [people trying to protect the town] alone, I'll kill you". Apparently, he recruited some other people to carry out his threat.

I'm not convinced he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm not convinced he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

That's a valid opinion, but I agree with the jury in this case, especially in light of Rosenbaum's explicit and definite threat to kill any of the town's defenders that he caught alone.

That, in my opinion, was Rittenhouse's biggest mistake of the night. In that kind of situation, where you have roving bands of thugs destroying everything they can and you know the police have declared purge conditions and they are not being allowed to keep the peace, he should have never separated from the other people attempting to protect Kenosha.

That's why I've heard it speculated that the SUV on fire that Rittenhouse was going to put out was deliberate bait to try and separate the defenders.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by cmikes

His father and his father's family live in Kenosha, and he worked there. He wasn't a stranger.

Nor was he protecting "his" town or was his house or his neighbor's house on fire. This was your crappy analogy, remember?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by cmikes

No, my point is that for the bloodthirsty, inbred, hillbilly hick of progressive fever dreams, he waited a remarkably long time before defending himself. Rittenhouse didn't defend himself until he was literally seconds from being killed.

Being killed with what?

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Nor was he protecting "his" town or was his house or his neighbor's house on fire. This was your crappy analogy, remember?

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

Also, I have no idea what Rittenhouse's situation with his family is, but my parents were divorced when I was a kid, and while I lived full time with my mother, I also considered my father's house home. I didn't watch all the testimony, but he may well consider Kenosha his home also. He certainly knew plenty of people there, and worked in town.

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by plague311

Being killed with what?

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed, Huber and Freeland followed up with his skateboard and boots, respectively. Whether the plan was simply to get him on the ground and beat him to death, or to have Grosskreutz come in and finish him with his pistol we don't know, since it definitely isn't in Grosskreutz's interest to admit to whatever they had decided or even if they had planned on anything besides "kill him".

[plague311]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed,

Ok. so Rosenbaum attacked him with...nothing? That's all I needed. Thanks. The rest means nothing to me.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by plague311

Ok. so Rosenbaum attacked him with...nothing? That's all I needed. Thanks. The rest means nothing to me.

And that is why you fail to convince anyone. Context matters. Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by cmikes

And that is why you fail to convince anyone.

Immediate failure on your part. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You made some **** up, I corrected it. You fail to convince anyone too, I'm just not really trying. You seem to take this case personally.

Originally Posted by cmikes

Context matters.

Yeah it does!

Originally Posted by cmikes

Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

Maybe, taken in context, Kyle shouldn't have had his ass out there to begin with.

I've accepted the self-defense ruling. I understand it, and I don't have many arguments with it because it's just not high on my list of things. That being said, I can still think and claim openly that Kyle Rittenhouse is a stupid piece of **** that made several dumbass decisions that resulted in the avoidable deaths had he just kept his ass at home (as they all should have).

That's the luxury for me here. I'm not a Kyle Rittenhouse nut hugger so I don't have to rail on his side. I'm also not adamantly against his sentence, so I don't have to rail on that side. I just get to explain, repeatedly, that he's a cowardly piece of **** and that's it.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

Also, I have no idea what Rittenhouse's situation with his family is, but my parents were divorced when I was a kid, and while I lived full time with my mother, I also considered my father's house home. I didn't watch all the testimony, but he may well consider Kenosha his home also. He certainly knew plenty of people there, and worked in town.

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

Legal concepts of Castle Doctrine and the like are usually limited to one's home, business, and car. To extend this kind of thinking to the public at large and declare yourself law enforcement where ever you decide to go is called...what's the word?...oh yeah, "vigilantism".

Kyle had no powers to "protect" Kenosha. Literally none. More to the point, by his own admission, he was not at all going there to protect Kenosha. He was going there at the invite of some LARPer soldiers to "protect" the burned-out and trashed car lot of a complete stranger, who offered to give them a couple of bucks later. Basically, he was a wannabe underage mercenary.

Kyle could not shoot property vandals. He had no police powers at all, and did not even have restraints if he was going to play at making a citizen's arrest. He did not call police, even when he killed people. Exactly what was he going to do to protect this random trashed car lot?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Kyle could not shoot property vandals. He had no police powers at all, and did not even have restraints if he was going to play at making a citizen's arrest. He did not call police, even when he killed people. Exactly what was he going to do to protect this random trashed car lot?

It was nice that he had time to call his buddy and brag it up though!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by cmikes

And that is why you fail to convince anyone. Context matters. Or do you honestly believe that an unarmed person has never killed anyone, especially when backed up by three other people, one of them armed with a pistol?

Oh Christ, dude, no one was "backing up" Rosenbaum. Kyle killed him and ran off, and random uninvolved strangers reacted to a shooter on the run. That's all they knew: Kyle killed someone and was fleeing. No one would have any reason to believe that Kyle was anything but a fleeing killer, which is in fact precisely what he was.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

It was nice that he had time to call his buddy and brag it up though!

Right? That says all you need to know about whether he was there as Captain Kyle, Defender of Kenosha, or whether he was Cowardly Kyle, LARPing weakling.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Legal concepts of Castle Doctrine and the like are usually limited to one's home, business, and car. To extend this kind of thinking to the public at large and declare yourself law enforcement where ever you decide to go is called...what's the word?...oh yeah, "vigilantism".

Kyle had no powers to "protect" Kenosha. Literally none.

That's really not true.

The mistake you are making is confining your definition of "protect" to only include the use of deadly force. Because that's the only time the Castle Doctrine gets invoked. Doing stuff like putting out fires (which Kyle did, and which enraged Rosenbaum) don't require the Castle Doctrine. And putting out fires is literally protecting people.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's really not true.

The mistake you are making is confining your definition of "protect" to only include the use of deadly force. Because that's the only time the Castle Doctrine gets invoked. Doing stuff like putting out fires (which Kyle did, and which enraged Rosenbaum) don't require the Castle Doctrine. And putting out fires is literally protecting people.

He carried a small kitchen fire extinguisher borrowed from Black's house. He was not going to extinguish much beyond a campfire with that.

Fortunately, he did take the time and money to invest in a $1500+ rifle and ammo, and even threw down a few more bucks that very morning for a sling.

What you spend time and money to adequately equip for speaks volumes about what you actually plan to do.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Well, again, I ask how far away from your home are you allowed to care about other people? I presume you wouldn't donate to a good cause if it were twenty miles or more from your home?

The #1 charity that I contribute to is literally called "Doctors Without Borders," so I guess that it's possible to care for people as far away as possible.

Which has nothing at all to do with your failed argument via crappy analogy.

Originally Posted by cmikes

I have to say, I really don't understand the "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude." Does it really have to be your home town for you to care about anyone? Not even where your family lives or where you work counts?

Who, anywhere in this thread, has exhibited a "**** those people, they don't live in my town attitude?" Oh, that's right, no one.

Again, we were discussing your stupid analogy that compared a kid going 20 miles to pick up an illegal assault rifle and play soldier on a burnt-out used car lot with ... your house being on fire or helping your neighbor with a hose and bucket. Remember?

Originally Posted by cmikes

I know that if my house was on fire, and the fire department wouldn't be coming, I would be trying to save it even if all I had was a garden house and a bucket. Or my neighbor's house, for that matter.

No one's house was on fire in Antioch, IL. Or their neighbor's house either.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Well, luckily we have evidence that shows that. The initial attack was Rosenbaum trying to get Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him with, then when that attack failed, Huber and Freeland followed up with his skateboard and boots, respectively. Whether the plan was simply to get him on the ground and beat him to death, or to have Grosskreutz come in and finish him with his pistol we don't know, since it definitely isn't in Grosskreutz's interest to admit to whatever they had decided or even if they had planned on anything besides "kill him".

See post 114.
Armed man just shot somebody.
You wonder why others might take this as threatening?
You ever consider that they might be 'standing their ground' with a skateboard and boots?

[mgidm86]

All I get from this incident and trial is that this country has attitudes and gun laws that do not belong anywhere near the 21st century. It is shameful and disgusting.