Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, clearly this was a larceny gone wrong. An elaborate caper motivated by the desire to steal an AR-15, perhaps the most available weapon in the entire country.

What WAS JoJo's intention, then? Go ahead, explain why was he chasing Kyle Rittenhouse?
So far, nobody has provided a reason for that. (and as he chased Kyle, Ziminski was also right there, why?)

Knowing the background of Alex Blaine, he was more than capable of hatching a ROBBERY (not larceny) of an expensive gun. His fellow 1%'ers in the outlaw biker gang clubhouse would be very thrilled when he came back with it, especially if Kyle had died in the process.
https://onepercenterbikers.com/sin-c...otorcycle-club

Oh, and by the way, Ziminski will NEVER admit that a robbery was his intention.
If he was to say that, he would be facing Capital Murder charges himself.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by webfusion

What WAS JoJo's intention, then? Go ahead, explain why was he chasing Kyle Rittenhouse?
So far, nobody has provided a reason for that. (and as he chased Kyle, Ziminski was also right there, why?)

Its been done many times. Kyle was illegally wandering around in a riot with a rifle. That alone makes him a dangerous criminal, full stop. So anyone seeing Kyle knows that he is a criminal with no respect for police orders. Coupled with a deadly weapon out and at the ready, he can be assumed to be hunting, to entertain your ongoing delusion. The game can be assumed to be humans, unless you now want to claim he was blowing a turkey call with his fowling peice.

Quote:

Knowing the background of Alex Blaine, he was more than capable of hatching a ROBBERY (not larceny) of an expensive gun. His fellow 1%'ers in the outlaw biker gang clubhouse would be very thrilled when he came back with it, especially if Kyle had died in the process.
https://onepercenterbikers.com/sin-c...otorcycle-club

Oh, and by the way, Ziminski will NEVER admit that a robbery was his intention.
If he was to say that, he would be facing Capital Murder charges himself.

Show evidence of this collaboration, please. Evidence of this conspiratorial planning, coordination, that kind of thing. Cuz the actual evidence is that it was impulsive and chaotic and disorganized.

Hey, how you doing on showing Ky-Ky's out-of-State hunting cert? You should let him and his attorneys know about it. They seem ignorant of this silver bullet.

"Kyle was in an out-of-State riot at night under a hunting exemption that he is unaware of, you see". God, I love this.

[webfusion]

Thermal, I call B.s.
"That alone (carrying a rifle) makes him a dangerous criminal, full stop."

Just keep in mind one thing -- Kyle Rittenhouse stopped the rioting, singlehandedly.
The Police were unable/unwilling to do a thing about the many, many ACTUAL criminals on the streets. The entire law-enforcement group (including State Police & National Guard) in Kenosha had basically given up trying to deal with it, and ceased to provide protection for the community.

https://media.nbcchicago.com/2020/09...ize=1200%2C675

[webfusion]

'What If' experiment:

Suppose Rittenhouse had been over 18? How would this alter the discussion here?

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by webfusion

'What If' experiment:

Suppose Rittenhouse had been over 18? How would this alter the discussion here?

My personal opinion on his culpability would have been pretty close.

If he'd violated one less law to get there (not having needed to make a straw purchase of a firearm illegally) then we would have had a little less of a window into his reckless and lawless mindset going into it. I'd have generally suspected it from the rest of the circumstances, but we wouldn't have the corroborating evidence to show it so clearly.

On the other hand, being a little bit older, he'd have less claim to the "I'm just a dumb kid who doesn't know any better" schtick. But not much. The difference between 17 and 18 isn't huge.

Overall, I'd call it a wash.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Thermal, I call B.s.
"That alone (carrying a rifle) makes him a dangerous criminal, full stop."

The law-abiding were given an emergency police order to stay off the streets. Those who said "FU coppers, I'm doing whatever I please" are what we call 'criminals'. He carried a deadly weapon while doing so, so he is what we call 'dangerous'. It's not that complicated.

Quote:

Just keep in mind one thing -- Kyle Rittenhouse stopped the rioting, singlehandedly.
The Police were unable/unwilling to do a thing about the many, many ACTUAL criminals on the streets. The entire law-enforcement group (including State Police & National Guard) in Kenosha had basically given up trying to deal with it, and ceased to provide protection for the community.

https://media.nbcchicago.com/2020/09...ize=1200%2C675

Which does not legalize Visitor Vigalantism. And he certainly did stop things, by being the most violent criminal on the block. Maybe you will swoon at him if kids TP's a neighbor's house and he kills them too?

You think he was a Good Guy Who makes his own rules and operates outside the law dispensing his own brand of justice. As we have seen, Wisconsin prosecutors disagree. They find his actions criminal. What the police at the scene did is pretty irrelevant. They didn't deputize him or otherwise give him police powers. Vigilantes are criminals, full stop.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by webfusion

'What If' experiment:

Suppose Rittenhouse had been over 18? How would this alter the discussion here?

It wouldn't. Well, maybe assume he should have known better, without the excuse of youthful Avenger role-playing. The corpses he littered the streets with are not overly concerned with how many candles were on his last birthday cake that mommy baked.

How you doing on those proofs for your growing stack of unsupported claims?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Yes, he shot THREE people who were all engaged at the time with trying to end his life.

JoJo Rosenbaum, who was hooked-up with the gun-carrying career criminal Joshua Ziminsky (aka Alex Blaine), as the two of them (IMO) hatched a plan to steal the AR15 -- an expensive gun, that Ziminski knew would be worth a lot of money in his biker-gang circle of thugs/friends.

This is Rosenbaum's buddy -- a real paragon of society.


Mr. Huber was not very well-trained in the deployment of a skateboard as a deadly weapon to smash someone's skull (use the heavy trucks, not the board), and he found out the hard way what happens when you try to 'cranium' an armed man and fail.

As for Mr. Grosskreutz, that freakshow got exactly what he deserved for his actions. Disgusting guy, who KNEW that Kyle was headed to the cops, and yet,
his only regret was in not blowing Kyle's brains all over the avenue.

Kyle Rittenhouse had NO INTENT to 'gun down' anyone.
He fired at point-blank range against violent attackers who displayed a clear and present danger.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

This transcends baseless speculation into outright fanfic.

You got it ST

webfusion, the bits I have highlighted are pure, unadulterated, speculative fiction - you either made this all up from whole cloth, or read it on some right-wing or gun-nut website. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of that bollocks you posted.

Rittenhouse is exactly what he appears to be - a pathetic, immature idiot with an Avengers fantasy playing out in his head. He's not a hero, he's a homicidal gun-nut, a dangerous criminal very much reminiscent of Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz. What he did was NOT self defence in any way shape or form - he armed himself with an illegally straw-purchased military assault weapon, took said weapon to an out-of-state protest and used said weapon to gun down two people, one of whom did nothing more than chase him and throw a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse is a straight-up double murderer who will be found guilty and will go to jail for a very long time!



ETA: Oh, and FYI, the criminal backgrounds of the victims here is irrelevant for two reasons

1. Killing a known criminal is still murder

2. There is no way that Rittenhouse knew his targets had criminal backgrounds.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You got it ST

webfusion, the bits I have highlighted are pure, unadulterated, speculative fiction - you either made this all up from whole cloth, or read it on some right-wing or gun-nut website. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of that bollocks you posted.

Rittenhouse is exactly what he appears to be - a pathetic, immature idiot with an Avengers fantasy playing out in his head. He's not a hero, he's a homicidal gun-nut, a dangerous criminal very much reminiscent of Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz. What he did was NOT self defence in any way shape or form - he armed himself with an illegally straw-purchased military assault weapon, took said weapon to an out-of-state protest and used said weapon to gun down two people, one of whom did nothing more than chase him and throw a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse is a straight-up double murderer who will be found guilty and will go to jail for a very long time!



ETA: Oh, and FYI, the criminal backgrounds of the victims here is irrelevant for two reasons

1. Killing a known criminal is still murder

2. There is no way that Rittenhouse knew his targets had criminal backgrounds.

While I hear what you are saying, I have the feeling Rittenhouse never actively wanted to take life, as Cruz did. Both murderers, but very different profiles.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

While I hear what you are saying, I have the feeling Rittenhouse never actively wanted to take life, as Cruz did. Both murderers, but very different profiles.

I see Rittenhouse as having been a spree/school shooter in waiting... This is pure speculation on my part, but based on what we have learned about spree shooters (especially very young ones) and what little we know about Rittenhouse; a loner, lives with his mother, no father in his life, bullied at school, gun obsessed, wannabe cop etc, I think it would have only been a matter of time before he went full Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold.

[webfusion]

smartcooky, now you are not only indicating that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty as sin for premeditatively and intentionally with malice aforethought, gunning down a few 'protestors' in cold blood. For target practice.
But, now you've gone as far as posting drivel -- "...one of whom did nothing more than chase him and throw a plastic bag at him."
Which is the COMPLETE 180* opposite of the eyewitness testimony given to police by Mr. McGinnis (regarding the close-up attacking actions of JoJo Rosenbaum and trying to take away the weapon).

JoJo did a heck of a lot more than just toss a plastic bag.
You are trying to hand-wave it away, ignoring what little actual evidence we have been allowed to peek at, and that's not cool.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Did he shoot someone with a gun?

Uh, he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who had a gun. So, the answer is yes, he shot someone with a gun. I think there are many images available of this People’s Revolution Movement jerkwad as he tries to use this gun to splatter Kyle's brains all over that Kenosha street.

"Hey, dude, my hands are up, don't worry about this gun, my hands are up!"

Kyle, fortunately for him, didn't fall for that old trick.

Oh, yeah, it also may be of interest to note that People’s Revolution Movement street action group is dedicated to conducting revolutionary guerrilla urban warfare to foment America’s transformation.

Indeed.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Uh, he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who had a gun. So, the answer is yes, he shot someone with a gun. I think there are many images available of this People’s Revolution Movement jerkwad as he tries to use this gun to splatter Kyle's brains all over that Kenosha street.

"Hey, dude, my hands are up, don't worry about this gun, my hands are up!"

Kyle, fortunately for him, didn't fall for that old trick.

Oh, yeah, it also may be of interest to note that People’s Revolution Movement street action group is dedicated to conducting revolutionary guerrilla urban warfare to foment America’s transformation.

Indeed.

Rittenhouse didn't know any of this at the time, so he can't use that in his defence, therefore, no matter what or who the victims were, it is irrelevant to this case. It has little or no probative value and is prejudicial, so a judge would likely rule any testimony as to the character and criminal records of the victims as inadmissible.


ETA: Oh, and for the record

"Rittenhouse shot the first victim, Joseph Rosenbaum, multiple times after the victim threw a plastic bag at him and tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun. Rittenhouse then ran away and was chased as people appeared to try to stop him, video shows. He then fired off more rounds, killing Huber and badly injuring Grosskreutz, the complaint says"

Rittenhouse had already shot and killed Rosebaum BEFORE Grosskreutz pulled his gun and chased him. Unlike Rittenhouse, who falsely claimed to be a medic (in Illinois, you have to be 18 before you can apply for EMT training), Grosskreutz is a qualified paramedic ( EMT-Basic MedaCare Ambulance rating since 2014) and, unlike Rittenhouse, has a carry licence valid in Wisconsin (he is a Milwaukee resident)

[webfusion]

Mr. Grosskreutz KNEW that Kyle was going down that street, right to the cops sitting at the corner. Gaige Grosskreutz live streamed his interaction with Kyle that revealed this information to him.
Vigilantes? Yeah, that was Mr. Grosskreutz. And Mr. Huber. And the flying-Kick Karate guy! And I'll add in Mr. Rosenbaum, with his hobo bag of socks and deodorant stick and underwear.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Mr. Grosskreutz KNEW that Kyle was going down that street, right to the cops sitting at the corner. Gaige Grosskreutz live streamed his interaction with Kyle that revealed this information to him.
Vigilantes? Yeah, that was Mr. Grosskreutz. And Mr. Huber. And the flying-Kick Karate guy! And I'll add in Mr. Rosenbaum, with his hobo bag of socks and deodorant stick and underwear.

More claims of ESP!

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

More claims of ESP!

It's on video. Are you claiming the video taken by Mr. Grosskreutz is fake? That's very interesting.

see 6:56 in this playback -- it goes by very quickly (the interaction between Kyle and Gaige is over by 7:01)
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-r...-defense-claim

Glad I can help you out with this stuff, smartcooky.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Uh, he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who had a gun. So, the answer is yes, he shot someone with a gun.

Thank you. Finally!

To use the vernacular, he gunned him down.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Thank you. Finally!

To use the vernacular, he gunned him down.

I think you missed the little humor regarding your sentence structure.

"he shot someone with a gun." -- that someone was Gaige, who had a gun.
See how that works?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

I think you missed the little humor regarding your sentence structure.

That is a somewhat unique definition of what counts as "humour". I find nothing funny in what you did there.

Originally Posted by webfusion

"he shot someone with a gun." -- that someone was Gaige, who had a gun.
See how that works?

Yeah, we all see your word games. They're not funny, they're pathetic.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

It's on video. Are you claiming the video taken by Mr. Grosskreutz is fake? That's very interesting.

see 6:56 in this playback -- it goes by very quickly (the interaction between Kyle and Gaige is over by 7:01)
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-r...-defense-claim

You realise he already shot and killed Rosenbaum by the time this video starts, right?

When people are pursuing a person who has committed a crime (shooting Rosenbaum) it is not self-defence if the person shoots the pursuers!

Glad I can help you with this stuff webfusion

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You realise he already shot and killed Rosenbaum by the time this video starts, right?

When people are pursuing a person who has committed a crime (shooting Rosenbaum) it is not self-defence if the person shoots the pursuers!

Glad I can help you with this stuff webfusion

Well, now I realize that you were unaware of this clip of video, and had to be spoon-fed.
You're welcome.


The FIRST instance of shooting Rosenbaum was not necessarily a crime, as it also can be a classic case of self-defense as Kyle tries to evade a crazed pursuer at the car lot! (ESPECIALLY he feared for his life once that Ziminski/Blaine thug opens fire in support of his new thug pal, JoJo). Boy oh boy, I would LOVE to see the videos taken by pink-haired Ashley Krueger (aka Kelly Ziminski). She was right there alongside Alex Blaine the whole time, phone in hand.

Additionally, in the case of Gaige Grosskreutz, it's really not his prerogative to "empty the magazine into his (Kyle's) head" -- which he regretted not doing.

Civilians cannot just decide to go after other people, just because they are SUSPECTED of something criminal. Or, are you OK with mobs taking care of things however they want?
Across the USA, the mobs have decided they are in charge.
I have seen here (wrongly) that Kyle adopted a "**** the cops" position but that reallly ignores the spray-painted and shouted-loudly position of protestors, which is ACAB, F-12, DefundPolice, etc.


I noted that your statement "When people are pursuing a person who has committed a crime (shooting Rosenbaum) it is not self-defense if the person shoots the pursuers!" is unsupported by law.

SuburbanTurkey attempted to claim this same thing earlier, and was shown the statute.
Post 96
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=96

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for rule 10. In the public sections, of which T&E is one, please type out any swearwords you feel compelled to include in full with no misspellings or replacement characters and allow the autocensor to work.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Well, now I realize that you were unaware of this clip of video,

Nope, I was perfectly aware of this clip. Furthermore, it supports what I said earlier....by the time of this clip, Rosenbaum (who was not carrying a firearm) had already been shot multiple times by Rittenhouse

1. a gunshot to the right groin, which fractured his pelvis;
2. a gunshot to in the back, which perforated his right lung and liver;
3. a gunshot to the left hand;
4. a gunshot to his lateral left thigh
5. a graze gunshot to the right side of his forehead

When a person shoots another, unarmed person multiple times, law enforcement, usually regard this as an indicator of rage.

Originally Posted by webfusion

The FIRST instance of shooting Rosenbaum was not necessarily a crime

Laughable. You must really be proud of your pathetic little hero showing such level of rage by delivering multiple shots with an assault rifle to kill an unarmed person.

[webfusion]

If you were perfectly aware of the clip, then why did you post "ESP" regarding my claim about what Gaige KNEW? He had just been TOLD by Kyle what his intentions were. No clairvoyance required there on my part. Just using my own eyes and ears.

I still DON"T GET your point regarding the late Mr. Rosenbaum --- you want to see RAGE, take a look at that guy, whydontcha?
(Also on video, you wanna link?)

What set him off on that chase? What was he thinking to accomplish by attacking Kyle?
Perhaps a sense of civic duty to disarm him? My own opinion is the motive was robbery.
Plain and simple, that gun was of value in two ways: Financially (it's worth a thousand dollars on the street) and Politically ("hey, I gave one of those White Supremacists what he deserved, a bullet from his own gun!!")

Asking Ziminski for any information now is useless, since the truth would incriminate him in a homicide, and that is not on his agenda. But the 'fly on the wall' is Ashley Krueger (aka Kelly Ziminski). Why has her cellphone not been subpoened? Her videos may shed some light.

The multiple shots were an indication that JoJo WOULD NOT STOP his physical actions to grab the gun, until he was dead. When you open fire with a semi-auto weapon in self-defense mode, multiple shots are the norm. Keep firing until the aggressor ceases to be a threat.
In Huber's case, it took one shot. In Grosskreutz's case, one. In Rosenbaum's case, the guy wouldn't drop, and required several rounds to make him cease the attack.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

When a person shoots another, unarmed person multiple times, law enforcement, usually regard this as an indicator of rage.

Please provide a cite to support your statement.
I am curious at what count the shooting becomes "enraged". Is it 2 shots? 3 shots? 4 shots? 8 shots?

As a former cop and firearms trainer - I can assure you that multiple shots don't indicate anything other than multiple shots. The when and where of the shots is vitally important though.
As a matter of fact - police training in many countries teaches an officer to continue shooting until the threat has been neutralized - i.e. stopped. That means numerous shots in some cases of self defense are recognized as fully and totally justified.

Never heard at a crime scene:
"Boy - I thought that was self defense but when I saw that the person fired 5 times instead of the statistical 4.237 times - I knew it was rage and not fear."


NOTE: As people seem to want to label those who try to add a touch of actual scepticism to this board as being on one side or the other - I will state now I have no dog in this fight. I will await the trial to hear first hand evidence and the challenges to that evidence before I try and make a judgement one way or the other.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by webfusion

I think you missed the little humor regarding your sentence structure.

"he shot someone with a gun." -- that someone was Gaige, who had a gun.
See how that works?

He shot someone (with a gun), which means he gunned that person down. See how that works?

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

He shot someone (with a gun), which means he gunned that person down. See how that works?

Actually, Mr. Best, along Sheridan St. in Kenosha, on a hot August night, with rage exploding everywhere, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three someones. All 3 of these fellows earned their bullets, by their own actions, and due to his keeping his wits about him while being attacked, Kyle didn't die at their hands. That is the story, in a nutshell.

The videos show this chain of events. It's plain as the nose on your face. Call it what you will.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Uh, he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who had a gun. So, the answer is yes, he shot someone with a gun. I think there are many images available of this People’s Revolution Movement jerkwad as he tries to use this gun to splatter Kyle's brains all over that Kenosha street.

"Hey, dude, my hands are up, don't worry about this gun, my hands are up!"

Kyle, fortunately for him, didn't fall for that old trick.

Oh, yeah, it also may be of interest to note that People’s Revolution Movement street action group is dedicated to conducting revolutionary guerrilla urban warfare to foment America’s transformation.

Indeed.

I haven't seen the videos or images, are you saying the accused shot someone who had their hands up?

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

I haven't seen the videos or images, are you saying the accused shot someone who had their hands up?

Incredible.
Watch the video and then re-enter this discussion with enough information to make informed comments. From the beginning of this thread, what, 12 pages ago, there have been many incorrect versions presented, mostly using inflammatory language that pre-judges and defames a man who is presumed innocent. (hat-tip to rockinkt for his comment about that)
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-r...-defense-claim

Anyway, in direct answer to your question -- Gaige Grosskreutz held a gun in one of his upraised hands as he PRETENDED to 'assist' Kyle Rittenhouse (as a paramedic, as his hat says). At the last moment, as Gaige got even closer, as he brought his right hand down with the gun, Kyle squeezed off a round that prevented his assailant from firing, as Gaige's arm was liquified. (on second thought, don't watch the videos, that scene is quite graphic, not suitable for everyone).

And if you are truly interested in this entire fiasco, Jacob Marshall is on record as indicating “I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too,” Marshall wrote in his Facebook account. “His only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun (sic) before emptying the entire mag into him.”

Gaige's little faux hands-up act reminds me of the famous scene in Die Hard, as John McClane appears to 'surrender' ----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnQEo4bazIo

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by webfusion

The videos show this chain of events. It's plain as the nose on your face. Call it what you will.

That's what I've been doing. You're the one who kept objecting to it.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Incredible.
Watch the video and then re-enter this discussion with enough information to make informed comments. From the beginning of this thread, what, 12 pages ago, there have been many incorrect versions presented, mostly using inflammatory language that pre-judges and defames a man who is presumed innocent. (hat-tip to rockinkt for his comment about that)
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-r...-defense-claim

RolandRat asked an honest question. Not all countries can even view American based videos, and many people don't click on random links for personal reasons.

Quote:

Anyway, in direct answer to your question -- Gaige Grosskreutz held a gun in one of his upraised hands as he PRETENDED to 'assist' Kyle Rittenhouse (as a paramedic, as his hat says).

Your imagination, not fact.

Quote:

At the last moment, as Gaige got even closer, as he brought his right hand down with the gun, Kyle squeezed off a round that prevented his assailant from firing,

Another way to view the same event is there were two guys with guns out: one put his hands up and the other fired on him. He was not surrendering to Kyle's authority, and did not need to keep his hands up for the killer's comfort.

Quote:

...as Gaige's arm was liquified. (on second thought, don't watch the videos, that scene is quite graphic, not suitable for everyone).

Liquifies is a good description. It is also why a .223 is not considered a defensive weapon. It is strictly a people killer. Those who have one have them to guarantee their kill with maximum damage, not to simply stop a threat. A shotgun with low brass could do that, or a .38 for those of legal age to carry. Well, not that Ky-Ky was of legal age to carry anything. Speaking of which, webfusion, how are you doing on that evidence for your claims? Seems like you've had plenty of time to prove that you are not making **** up.

Quote:

And if you are truly interested in this entire fiasco, Jacob Marshall is on record as indicating “I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too,” Marshall wrote in his Facebook account. “His only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun (sic) before emptying the entire mag into him.”

Yeah, after losing my arm to the little coward, I'd have wished I had unloaded on him too. Is Marshall Kyle's official spokesman, btw?

Quote:

Gaige's little faux hands-up act reminds me of the famous scene in Die Hard, as John McClane appears to 'surrender' ----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnQEo4bazIo

It's not Christmas till Hans Gruber takes the fall.

But to wit: why are you sure that Gaige knew what happened with Killer Kyle? Why do you think everyone had a complete understanding of who was doing what? If Gaige heard people shouting that Rittenhouse had shot someone, wouldn't chasing an obviously armed fleeing man...er, boy...be a brave response?

I mean, since you claim to know what was going through everyone's mind and all.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Incredible.
Watch the video and then re-enter this discussion with enough information to make informed comments.

Not quite sure what's incredible. My previous comments was quite literally true and didn't need any further knowledge of what happened.

But still, I watched it. They where going after Rittenhouse because other protestors where screaming he had just shot someone.

I totally get that Rittenhouse was probably crapping himself at this point. He probably realised he'd made a big mistake travelling there and now it had all gone bad.

All of this is on Rittenhouse. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said. If he hadn't of gone looking for violence by deliberately travelling to Kenosha, none of this would have happened.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

R


Another way to view the same event is there were two guys with guns out: one put his hands up and the other fired on him. He was not surrendering to Kyle's authority, and did not need to keep his hands up for the killer's comfort.

.

Gaige did seem to lunge at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse fired. Seems kinda pertinent to me, if Gaige had wanted to have fired, getting close and then lunging seems a bit silly. Seems to me he was going for Rittenhouse's gun.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Not quite sure what's incredible. My previous comments was quite literally true and didn't need any further knowledge of what happened.

But still, I watched it. They where going after Rittenhouse because other protestors where screaming he had just shot someone.

I totally get that Rittenhouse was probably crapping himself at this point. He probably realised he'd made a big mistake travelling there and now it had all gone bad.

All of this is on Rittenhouse. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said. If he hadn't of gone looking for violence by deliberately travelling to Kenosha, none of this would have happened.

THIS

webfusion still does not seem to understand this, even after having it pointed out to him several times. This video he posted does not show all three shootings, it only shows the second two (Huber and Grosskreutz) who are among a group of people pursuing Rittenhouse because he shot and killed someone. That someone was Rosenbaum who was unarmed and Rittenhouse had shot him in the back... let that sink in for a moment, Rittenhouse shot an unarmed man in the back... there is name for people like that... backshooter, and another name, coward.

The fact that he shot his first victim in the back clearly yanks the rug out from under his self defence claim - the only way a person can be shot in the back is if they are facing away from the shooter, and if they are unarmed, and facing away from the shooter, they cannot be presenting a deadly threat to the shooter

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Gaige did seem to lunge at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse fired. Seems kinda pertinent to me, if Gaige had wanted to have fired, getting close and then lunging seems a bit silly. Seems to me he was going for Rittenhouse's gun.

Exactly my point. If Gaige wanted to shoot, he could have easily done so earlier. He chose not to, but instead to get control of Kyle's barrel. It's dicey as hell, but better than shooting or being a sitting duck. Makes me think Gauge was trying to disarm, not kill.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Please provide a cite to support your statement.
I am curious at what count the shooting becomes "enraged". Is it 2 shots? 3 shots? 4 shots? 8 shots?

As a former cop and firearms trainer - I can assure you that multiple shots don't indicate anything other than multiple shots. The when and where of the shots is vitally important though.
As a matter of fact - police training in many countries teaches an officer to continue shooting until the threat has been neutralized - i.e. stopped. That means numerous shots in some cases of self defense are recognized as fully and totally justified.

Never heard at a crime scene:
"Boy - I thought that was self defense but when I saw that the person fired 5 times instead of the statistical 4.237 times - I knew it was rage and not fear."


NOTE: As people seem to want to label those who try to add a touch of actual scepticism to this board as being on one side or the other - I will state now I have no dog in this fight. I will await the trial to hear first hand evidence and the challenges to that evidence before I try and make a judgement one way or the other.

Rittenhouse had no LEO training though.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Rittenhouse had no LEO training though.

He was a Cub Scout or something, wasn't he? Surely that gives him the chops to be a Street Vigilante. I mean, Bruce Wayne wasnt a cop either.

Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na....KYYYYY-LLLLLEEE!

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

THIS

webfusion still does not seem to understand this, even after having it pointed out to him several times. This video he posted does not show all three shootings, it only shows the second two (Huber and Grosskreutz) who are among a group of people pursuing Rittenhouse because he shot and killed someone. That someone was Rosenbaum who was unarmed and Rittenhouse had shot him in the back... let that sink in for a moment, Rittenhouse shot an unarmed man in the back... there is name for people like that... backshooter, and another name, coward.

The fact that he shot his first victim in the back clearly yanks the rug out from under his self defence claim - the only way a person can be shot in the back is if they are facing away from the shooter, and if they are unarmed, and facing away from the shooter, they cannot be presenting a deadly threat to the shooter

It's a gun nut thing. "How dare you, chase me down* when I have a gun, A Gun!!, in my hand!! Respect the firearm!!"

*Even though I just shot someone in a crowd of people and then loitered around area for some time. The crowd should still know its' place!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Rittenhouse had no LEO training though.

Not only did he not have any LEO training, he made a bogus claim to be a trained and qualified EMT. In Illinois, you have to be 18 to apply for and begin training as an EMT.

https://study.com/emt_training_illinois.html

Licensed basic emergency medical technicians in Illinois must be at least 18 years of age, have a high school diploma and pass an EMT-B course which consists of 110 classroom hours and ten clinical hours. From there, the state licensure examination or the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT) exam must be passed.

Mummy showing him how to apply a sticking plaster, and carrying an off-the-shelf first aid kit from Walmart does not qualify him as an EMT.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

All of this is on Rittenhouse. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said. If he hadn't of gone looking for violence by deliberately travelling to Kenosha, none of this would have happened.

Setting aside everything else, how is this much different than saying "This is all on her. If she hadn't gone looking for trouble by walking down a dark alley dressed in skimpy clothing, this rape never would have happened"?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

Setting aside everything else, how is this much different than saying "This is all on her. If she hadn't gone looking for trouble by walking down a dark alley dressed in skimpy clothing, this rape never would have happened"?

Sad that I have to explain this to you..

"She" wasn't armed with an assault rifle

"She" didn't kill anyone

Glad I could help