Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Thermal

To keep the armed threat in sight? Maybe to not let him find a good sniping nest? A random running around in a riot with a high powered rifle is a real threat to the public

What would gave him the idea that he would snipe people? What was he doing before then?

[shuttlt]

The story that is being presented on the right is something like this....

The first guy to get shot (Rosenbaum) was part of a group who had set light to a dumpster and were pushing it towards a gas station and some police vehicles. Kyle ran up to them with a fire extinguisher and put it out. The protesters aren't happy about this. That then caused the confrontation where the two groups are shouting at each other and Rosenbaum pushing and shouting. Somehow that breaks up with Kyle running pursued by a group led by Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum throws something in a bag at Kyle as they cross an open area with others in pursuit. Kyles way is somewhat obstructed by cars. Rosenbaum gets close to him. Somebody other than Kyle fires a pistol of some kind. Kyle turns to confront his pursuers. Rosenbaum goes for Kyle's gun and is shot. There is speculation that the shot in Rosenbaum's back may have come from somebody shooting at Kyle.

We'll have to see how the details pan out, but there seems like the potential for a self defence argument in there to me.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

What would gave him the idea that he would snipe people? What was he doing before then?

...running around with a high powered rifle on a street during a riot?

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...running around with a high powered rifle on a street during a riot?

But he was running from Rosenbaum.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The story that is being presented on the right is something like this....

The first guy to get shot (Rosenbaum) was part of a group who had set light to a dumpster and were pushing it towards a gas station and some police vehicles. Kyle ran up to them with a fire extinguisher and put it out. The protesters aren't happy about this. That then caused the confrontation where the two groups are shouting at each other and Rosenbaum pushing and shouting. Somehow that breaks up with Kyle running pursued by a group led by Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum throws something in a bag at Kyle as they cross an open area with others in pursuit. Kyles way is somewhat obstructed by cars. Rosenbaum gets close to him. Somebody other than Kyle fires a pistol of some kind. Kyle turns to confront his pursuers. Rosenbaum goes for Kyle's gun and is shot. There is speculation that the shot in Rosenbaum's back may have come from somebody shooting at Kyle.

We'll have to see how the details pan out, but there seems like the potential for a self defence argument in there to me.

According to how things are reported on the right, James Alex Fields ran over the Charlottesville protesters in self-defense. Even as the trial went on and a provable, factual narrative of the attack was presented and his defense was unable to refute it, the false narrative of him being attacked persists in right wing circles. Right wingers will still insist that counter-protesters attacked his car with bats, and that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack and not from blunt force trauma from his car.

I bring this up just to point out the lengths right wingers will go to defend political murders by their own. They will not only support such a flimsy justification without evidence, but will support it even if clear evidence exists that debunks such narratives.

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum was shot by a second shooter unless there is clear evidence, which almost certainly does not exist.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

But he was running from Rosenbaum.

...I don't think Ky-Ky materialized on the asphalt when Rosenbaum arrived. Kind of under the impression that Ky-Ky was already running around with the rifle. Not even a shotgun with birdshot, either: a .222 that liquifies what it hits.+/-.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darat

Nothing for killing the people?

All his lawyer has to do is create a sliver of belief in just one juror's mind that Rittenhouse could have been acting in self-defense. That is going to be easy.

That said, there are probably some lesser crimes that the prosecution might be able to get him on--manslaughter, for example. But they don't get two bites at the apple; they have to decide which charges to go for.

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by carlitos

It's ambiguous, but probably not open-and-shut. What seems more likely is that the Wisconsin resident that loaned him the gun is in for a few problems, at the very least in terms of civil suits. They didn't loan him the gun to go hunting.

I used the words ‘do not’ intentionally. Laws can be written to grant or forbid something. Lacking a law pertaining to the specific situation (a 17 year old open carrying a rifle) the default is that activity is legal. As it pertains to the claim that Kyle was ‘illegally carrying a rifle’ that claim is false.

Here is a breakdown analysis referencing appropriate Wisconsin statutes: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/kyl...#axzz6XfZCizat

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by Brainster

All his lawyer has to do is create a sliver of belief in just one juror's mind that Rittenhouse could have been acting in self-defense. That is going to be easy.

That said, there are probably some lesser crimes that the prosecution might be able to get him on--manslaughter, for example. But they don't get two bites at the apple; they have to decide which charges to go for.

Especially considering video evidence of Kyle attempting to flee and being pursed and engaged physically by his pursuers. The video also shows restraint from Kyle, it shows that he fired to stop the threat to his physical well-being, he did NOT continue to shot that person after they disengaged from him (retreated).

I am completely in the dark about what happen before the video evidence starts. He could be charged for murder from that incident.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...I don't think Ky-Ky materialized on the asphalt when Rosenbaum arrived. Kind of under the impression that Ky-Ky was already running around with the rifle. Not even a shotgun with birdshot, either: a .222 that liquifies what it hits.+/-.

What's with the Ky-Ky?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Didn't Trump declare it was self-defence a few days ago?

Dave

The guy should plead guilty so he's sentenced before Trump loses and no longer has the ability to pardon him.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I think it's clear that Kyle thought he was acting within the law, but that's largely irrelevant to whether it actually is lawful.

The course of events through the night show Kyle making a series of decisions that are clearly reckless and show a willingness for armed conflict. Some are outright unlawful. Juries aren't legal robots. The fact that Kyle traveled out of his way to play Judge Dredd with a rifle he can't lawfully carry after a riot curfew that resulted in him killing two, maiming one, and endangering scores of others will not endear him to a jury of normal human beings.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

What's with the Ky-Ky?

Assuming it's what the other kids called him when they went out back to play soldier.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Especially considering video evidence of Kyle attempting to flee and being pursed and engaged physically by his pursuers. The video also shows restraint from Kyle, it shows that he fired to stop the threat to his physical well-being, he did NOT continue to shot that person after they disengaged from him (retreated).

I am completely in the dark about what happen before the video evidence starts. He could be charged for murder from that incident.

There is quite a bit of video evidence doing the rounds purporting to be of Kyle putting out the dumpster fire and the confrontation that follows. The first hit when I searched for a video was this:

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

I know nothing about the channel, but the videos have been all over the internet for days now. The good stuff starts at around 3:05. I've seen other video as well not included here.

There are then several videos from different angles covering the initial shot as he runs across the parking lot that doesn't seem to come from Kyle:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1298840777251008512
https://www.brighteon.com/e2645426-7...4-6635aae26c51

Some of them claim to show muzzle flash.

I certainly wouldn't say it is definitive, but I haven't seen anything yet to contradict the story that Kyle prevented a mob setting fire to a gas station, which caused the mob to focus on him, causing him to run pursued by the would be arsonists.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I bring this up just to point out the lengths right wingers will go to defend political murders by their own. They will not only support such a flimsy justification without evidence, but will support it even if clear evidence exists that debunks such narratives.

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum was shot by a second shooter unless there is clear evidence, which almost certainly does not exist.

It's kind of too early to tell yet, isn't it? Would we know one way or the other. There appears to be another shot on the video that seems to come while Kyle is still facing away from Rosenbaum. We know that at least some of the protesters had guns. We'll see. You guys seem to have a whole narrative built up here that doesn't mention once any of the videos that have been doing the round since August that support self defence. Some posters are clearly ignorant of the existence of these videos. Have you not seen them, or are they being discounted for reasons outside this thread?

At the moment the evidence seems to show that Kyle prevented a mob setting fire to a gas station, which caused members of the mob to fixate on Kyle, there was a heated confrontation, Kyle ran, members of the mob gave chase, somebody fired a gun causing Kyle to turn, Rosenbaum then attacked Kyle. Kyle then shot Rosenbaum. Unless something turns up to show that that isn't what happened, I don't see why that couldn't be self defence?

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...I don't think Ky-Ky materialized on the asphalt when Rosenbaum arrived. Kind of under the impression that Ky-Ky was already running around with the rifle. Not even a shotgun with birdshot, either: a .222 that liquifies what it hits.+/-.

What do you mean "running around". It seems he was mostly standing around when he encountered Rosenbaum. We have a video of Rosenbaum daring him to shoot him at the gas station and then a video of Rosenbaum chasing Kyle and then getting shot. We don't know what happened in-between.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's kind of too early to tell yet, isn't it? Would we know one way or the other. There appears to be another shot on the video that seems to come while Kyle is still facing away from Rosenbaum. We know that at least some of the protesters had guns. We'll see. You guys seem to have a whole narrative built up here that doesn't mention once any of the videos that have been doing the round since August that support self defence. Some posters are clearly ignorant of the existence of these videos. Have you not seen them, or are they being discounted for reasons outside this thread?

At the moment the evidence seems to show that Kyle prevented a mob setting fire to a gas station, which caused members of the mob to fixate on Kyle, there was a heated confrontation, Kyle ran, members of the mob gave chase, somebody fired a gun causing Kyle to turn, Rosenbaum then attacked Kyle. Kyle then shot Rosenbaum. Unless something turns up to show that that isn't what happened, I don't see why that couldn't be self defence?

The narrative you linked makes a lot of assumptions about the timeline and how Kyle and the others got from this gas station standoff to the scene of the first killing. Is there any evidence that it was immediately after the linked video? Is there any evidence that this confrontation was the inciting incident to the chase seen later and that nothing else happened off camera?

Rosenbaum was not the man firing the pistol. It's unclear who that is and who or what they are shooting at. Kyle shooting Rosenbaum because he was spooked by 3rd party gunfire doesn't help his case.

Getting shoved by an unarmed man at gas station isn't grounds for a lethal self defense claim. Rittenhouse is going to face a lot of problems around the idea of reasonable proportionality, I suspect. Even if he had some right to self defense, it's quite the leap to assume he had the right to open fire on unarmed assailants.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

I used the words ‘do not’ intentionally. Laws can be written to grant or forbid something. Lacking a law pertaining to the specific situation (a 17 year old open carrying a rifle) the default is that activity is legal. As it pertains to the claim that Kyle was ‘illegally carrying a rifle’ that claim is false.

Here is a breakdown analysis referencing appropriate Wisconsin statutes: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/kyl...#axzz6XfZCizat

"The default is that it's legal" might get you somewhere in libertarian utopia court, but maybe not so far in Wisconsin. And you'll excuse me if I ignore the legal analysis of "ammoland dot com" and continue my belief that a 17-year-old brandishing an AR-15 on a city street may indeed have violated some Wisconsin gun law.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The narrative you linked makes a lot of assumptions about the timeline and how Kyle and the others got from this gas station standoff to the scene of the first killing. Is there any evidence that it was immediately after the linked video? Is there any evidence that this confrontation was the inciting incident to the chase seen later and that nothing else happened off camera?

So we are hunting for transitional forms? Sure there are gaps in the narrative. That feels more like a prosecution problem than a defence one. Maybe they will be filled in, maybe they won't be. You guys seem super sure that they were chasing him out of concern that he was running around with a gun. Doesn't the evidence of Kyle putting out the burning dumpster at the gas station causing angry shouts from the mob, Rosenbaum at the gas station with the mob shouting and shoving at Kyle and and the other militia, and then Kyle running from Rosenbaum and others make you wonder that maybe there is a possibility that it went down the way I said?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Rosenbaum was not the man firing the pistol.

I never said he was.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

somebody fired a gun causing Kyle to turn

And I haven't seen anybody claim he did.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's unclear who that is and who or what they are shooting at. Kyle shooting Rosenbaum because he was spooked by 3rd party gunfire doesn't help his case.

So being chased by an angry mob of arsonists when you hear shooting from behind you isn't a cause to be in imminent fear for your life? ok.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Getting shoved by an unarmed man at gas station isn't grounds for a lethal self defense claim. Rittenhouse is going to face a lot of problems around the idea of proportionality, I suspect. Even if he had some right to self defense, it's quite the leap to assume he had the right to open fire on unarmed assailants.

He doesn't know that the man is unarmed. Other people are coming up behind who he has reason to believe are armed. They have just tried to burn down a gas station. We don't know what else he has seen them do. He has every reason to suppose they are violent criminals, which I think we have subsequently found out some of them were.

Your view of this is wilfully one sides. This is a sceptic forum not a wannabe antifa advocacy group.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

What do you mean "running around". It seems he was mostly standing around when he encountered Rosenbaum. We have a video of Rosenbaum daring him to shoot him at the gas station and then a video of Rosenbaum chasing Kyle and then getting shot. We don't know what happened in-between.

What I mean by 'running around' is what most Americans mean by 'running around'. It's a figure of speech. While you may have it confused with track and field/cross-country completions ie: running in a circular motion, as on a track, what I mean is that he was galavanting about the rioting streets with a modified military weapon. Or perhaps we could say 'frolicking along with a high-powered people-killer'. Or 'diddy-bopping with a 30 round capacity boomstick.' Do you like 'prancing about the boulevard with an instrument of death' better?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carlitos

"The default is that it's legal" might get you somewhere in libertarian utopia court, but maybe not so far in Wisconsin. And you'll excuse me if I ignore the legal analysis of "ammoland dot com" and continue my belief that a 17-year-old brandishing an AR-15 on a city street may indeed have violated some Wisconsin gun law.

The relevant statute seems to be this:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/948/60

Quote:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

So, you have a rule for under 17s, and another for under 18s. The critical bit seems to be 3c. In that 941.28 seems to be about short barreled rifles, so I assume doesn't apply. 29.304 is about under 16s. 29.593 is about getting a hunting license.

I'm no lawyer, but it's far from obvious to me that he has broken the law with regard to possessing the gun. Is there analysis of this arguing that he did?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

So we are hunting for transitional forms? Sure there are gaps in the narrative. That feels more like a prosecution problem than a defence one. Maybe they will be filled in, maybe they won't be. You guys seem super sure that they were chasing him out of concern that he was running around with a gun. Doesn't the evidence of Kyle putting out the burning dumpster at the gas station causing angry shouts from the mob, Rosenbaum at the gas station with the mob shouting and shoving at Kyle and and the other militia, and then Kyle running from Rosenbaum and others make you wonder that maybe there is a possibility that it went down the way I said?

Self defense is an affirmative defense. It's Kyle's burden to prove that the killing was lawful. The prosecution already has all the evidence it needs for a conviction because it is undisputed that Kyle shot and killed his victims. Kyle needs to prove it was lawful. His defense will need to convincingly fill that time gap with an acceptable story. Why did the crowd chase Kyle and no-one else from the armed picket line? Is it possible that he crossed a line of violence that none of the others did?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

So being chased by an angry mob of arsonists when you hear shooting from behind you isn't a cause to be in imminent fear for your life? ok.

Was the shooter in league with the arsonists? Hard to say. Most of the people visibly armed with firearms were self-appointed anti-looter types like Kyle. Could have been one of his allies firing the shot for all we know. Does anyone know where that shooter was aiming or where the shot ended up?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

He doesn't know that the man is unarmed. Other people are coming up behind who he has reason to believe are armed. They have just tried to burn down a gas station. We don't know what else he has seen them do. He has every reason to suppose they are violent criminals, which I think we have subsequently found out some of them were.

Your view of this is wilfully one sides. This is a sceptic forum not a wannabe antifa advocacy group.

Furtive movements and hypothetical guns might work for the cops hand-waving away bad shoots, but regular citizens are usually held to a higher standard (absurd as that is). An ordinary person claiming they had to shoot because of a hypothetical weapon is a long-odds defense. The fact of the matter is that Rosenbaum was unarmed, as far as I can tell from public evidence.

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Thermal

What I mean by 'running around' is what most Americans mean by 'running around'. It's a figure of speech. While you may have it confused with track and field/cross-country completions ie: running in a circular motion, as on a track, what I mean is that he was galavanting about the rioting streets with a modified military weapon. Or perhaps we could say 'frolicking along with a high-powered people-killer'. Or 'diddy-bopping with a 30 round capacity boomstick.' Do you like 'prancing about the boulevard with an instrument of death' better?

Rosenbaum know people were there to protect property with guns. Why would be assume Kyle was a mass-shooter?

[carlitos]

“I’m no lawyer but here’s the relevant statute.“
No thanks.

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by carlitos

"The default is that it's legal" might get you somewhere in libertarian utopia court, but maybe not so far in Wisconsin. And you'll excuse me if I ignore the legal analysis of "ammoland dot com" and continue my belief that a 17-year-old brandishing an AR-15 on a city street may indeed have violated some Wisconsin gun law.

Which Wisconsin statute did Kyle break? Have you notified the prosecutors of your allegation since they have not changed Kyle of brandishing in their official charges?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Wonder how long Kyle is going to rot in jail before he gets his day in court. As a wannabe cop, I'm sure he's familiar with the expression "you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride".

Even if he pulls off a miracle not-guilty on all counts, he's not getting any of this pre-trial detention time back.

He isn't in an adult jail is he?
I thought he was in juvi detention.
Did they move him?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

He isn't in an adult jail is he?
I thought he was in juvi detention.
Did they move him?

I think he's in juvie and is being tried as an adult. This trial might drag on long enough for him to turn 18 and be transferred to adult prison.

Regardless, he's in custody until the verdict.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Which Wisconsin statute did Kyle break? Have you notified the prosecutors of your allegation since they have not changed Kyle of brandishing in their official charges?

They tend not to charge brandishing when gunmen actually pull the trigger. You may notice he's charged with multiple crimes concerning his handling of the rifle, including 2 homicides and 2 reckless endangerments. Maybe he jaywalked during the slayings too, but that's not really on the radar either.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Self defense is an affirmative defense. It's Kyle's burden to prove that the killing was lawful. The prosecution already has all the evidence it needs for a conviction because it is undisputed that Kyle shot and killed his victims. Kyle needs to prove it was lawful. His defense will need to convincingly fill that time gap with an acceptable story. Why did the crowd chase Kyle and no-one else from the armed picket line? Is it possible that he crossed a line of violence that none of the others did?

The test isn't going to be "is it possible that". So far the evidence we have backs up the defence claim that he had reason to fear for his life from Rosenbaum. Presumably at any trial we will have testimony about what happened and probably other video. I'm not sure where the certainty on the forum is coming from that Rosenbaum was merely intending to disarm Rittenhouse in the interests of public safety.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Was the shooter in league with the arsonists?

What has that got to do with anything?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Most of the people visibly armed with firearms were self-appointed anti-looter types like Kyle.

Sure, but we also know that the protesters had at least one concealed illegally held pistol, don't we?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Could have been one of his allies firing the shot for all we know.

I suppose this is possible. I'm not sure that that changes anything if we are talking about his beliefs with respect to a claim of self defence.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Does anyone know where that shooter was aiming or where the shot ended up?

How would this matter with respect to Rittenhouse's beliefs with respect to a claim of self defence?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Furtive movements and hypothetical guns might work for the cops hand-waving away bad shoots, but regular citizens are usually held to a higher standard (absurd as that is). An ordinary person claiming they had to shoot because of a hypothetical weapon is a long-odds defense. The fact of the matter is that Rosenbaum was unarmed, as far as I can tell from public evidence.

Why would it matter if it is ever shown that there definitely was a gun, who had it, or the direction in which it was fired? We hear what sounds like a gun on multiple recordings, and have a witness on tape saying that they hear a shot just before the confrontation, in other words the story I'm presenting was what was understood by witnesses not involved with the shooting at the time.

More evidence will probably come out, so things may change, but for now I am baffled by your confidence in your narrative. It defies the evidence that we have.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carlitos

“I’m no lawyer but here’s the relevant statute.“
No thanks.

Close down the thread everybody! This topic is for professionals with relevant qualifications and the gut instinct of posters sympathetic to antifa only. If you want to play amateur detective digging into primary sources, go do it on a skeptics forum.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Assuming it's what the other kids called him when they went out back to play soldier.

[bluesjnr]

Slightly off topic, and just an observation, but I'm reasonably sure that there is more than just one person in this thread who has, in the past, wished summary justice on sexual offenders - sometimes to the severest extent. Given that Rosenbaum done time for sexual misconduct with a minor and Blake will face trial for sexual assault (or similar), many of you will be OK with these, specific, outcomes... yeah?

Derail over.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The test isn't going to be "is it possible that". So far the evidence we have backs up the defence claim that he had reason to fear for his life from Rosenbaum..

Was Rosenbaum armed with any kind of firearm? If not, then to suggest that Rittenhouse (who was openly, visibly armed with a high-powered semi-automatic weapon) "feared for his life" is a ******* lie; its complete and utter bull-**** !

As for Huber, I guess he got what you get when you are silly enough to bring a skateboard to a gun fight with a bunch of right wing, Trump-loving, trigger happy gun loonies.

Oh wait, I forgot. It was the Trump-loving, trigger happy gun loonies who brought the guns in the first place. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket, and Trump apologists like you appear to be applauding that all the way.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Slightly off topic, and just an observation, but I'm reasonably sure that there is more than just one person in this thread who has, in the past, wished summary justice on sexual offenders - sometimes to the severest extent. Given that Rosenbaum done time for sexual misconduct with a minor and Blake will face trial for sexual assault (or similar), many of you will be OK with these, specific, outcomes... yeah?

Derail over.

Huber had domestic abuse, false imprisonment, assault and battery and illegal weapons covered off. While Grosskreutz was a convicted burglar. I disagree with any talk of them deserving to be shot in a retributive sense. It does seem to me to lend some further, all be it retrospective, plausibility to Rittenhouse's presumed view that they were violent rioters who meant to cause him significant harm.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

See post #11

You meant "another poster may say something?" That leaves me even more confused as to what you mean by "other side" in this criminal case.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Was Rosenbaum armed with any kind of firearm? If not, then to suggest that Rittenhouse (who was openly, visibly armed with a high-powered semi-automatic weapon) "feared for his life" is a ******* lie; its complete and utter bull-**** !

Rosenbaum was attempting to take the high-powered semi-automatic weapon from Rittenhouse and was being followed by other rioters. Had he not shot Rosenbaum he would have found out what Rosenbaum and the rioters intended to do to him once Rosenbaum had the high-powered semi-automatic weapon and Rittenhouse did not.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As for Huber, I guess he got what you get when you are silly enough to bring a skateboard to a gun fight with a bunch of right wing, Trump-loving, trigger happy gun loonies.

What was the alternative? Wait for the rioters to beat him unconscious and hope for the best? Again, Huber attempted to grab the gun. If Rittenhouse doesn't shoot Huber he is going to find out what happens when the rioters have the gun and he doesn't.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Oh wait, I forgot. It was the Trump-loving, trigger happy gun loonies who brought the guns in the first place.

Not entirely true. The man who was shot in the arm was armed (presumably illegally, given the burglary conviction) and says he was intending to empty the magazine into Rittenhouse.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Your country is going to hell in a handbasket, and Trump apologists like you appear to be applauding that all the way.

Not at all, I think the police should go in and arrest all the criminal rioters and they should be kept off the streets until things quiet down. They should also be policing the militia since, even if it is legal, it is a tense situation in which bad things can happen. Order needs to be restored.

Surely arresting the rioters and looters would be good for BLM? No more images of burning buildings.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Darat

You meant "another poster may say something?" That leaves me even more confused as to what you mean by "other side" in this criminal case.

Especially when said poster seems to be the "other side".

[Darat]

Catching up on this thread and I noticed something that I find curious so I'm going to ask about it: Why are members referring to the killer by his first name but the dead by their last?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

Catching up on this thread and I noticed something that I find curious so I'm going to ask about it: Why are members referring to the killer by his first name but the dead by their last?

I don't know. I caught myself doing it and stopped myself a few posts back. For myself, I think I'm much for familiar with Kyle Rittenhouse's name and Kyle is quicker and easier to type and everybody knows who is being referred to. I keep having to look up the names of the others.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Darat

Catching up on this thread and I noticed something that I find curious so I'm going to ask about it: Why are members referring to the killer by his first name but the dead by their last?

Perhaps to portray the shooter as a kid, to humanise him and to generate sympathy.

The victims are referred to by only their last names for the opposite reason - and to stress (((Rosenbaum)))