Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting - Page 13

RolandRat · 4th January 2021, 06:10 AM

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"?

Wow. Just wow. That is breathtakingly stupid. Are you actually equating a rape victim to someone who travelled to a protest and shot people?

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2021, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal?

Yep obeying the law is for other people. Just think if the cops had actually enforced the laws he was breaking against him he would be all well and good now too. Well asside from those felony weapons charges but who ever expects white people to obey gun laws?

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2021, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Right, and Master Rittenhouse was not in compliance with the hunting regs, which might have provided him an exemption. We've been through all this.

Nonsense he was hunting the most dangerous game that night after all. So that gets him out of the weapons charges.

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2021, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

That is probably not true, I started and EMT course in NY before I turned 18. I just had to turn 18 before the test for certification. But he is certainly not an EMT.

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2021, 08:24 AM

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"?

Well for starters that would have to be a crime for it to pass first rounds of comparison.

I know many people here think that schools and all public spaces should allow children to pack heat for protection. See the support for the Kinder Guardians program.

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

Doghouse Reilly · 4th January 2021, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Wow. Just wow. That is breathtakingly stupid. Are you actually equating a rape victim to someone who travelled to a protest and shot people?

There is a difference between equating and comparing. Your avoidance of the actual point is duly noted, as is your flair for the dramatic ("breathtakingly" and the rare unironic "Wow. Just wow.")

Doghouse Reilly · 4th January 2021, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions.

Thermal · 4th January 2021, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions.

Its not so much a question of absolving as irrelevance. What groups Rittenhouse's victims belonged to, or their police records, simply doesn't matter. Nor does their conduct during a riot, really. I mean, the ticket price of joining in a violent protest is that you have to check your halo at the gate. You're all bad guys. Kyle couldn't hang, so he shot everyone who got in his face. It don't work that way. That ultimately makes him far worse than the rest, by a long shot. Or at least by point blank shot with a people-killing .223.

smartcooky · 4th January 2021, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions.

Last time I looked, a woman "dressing provocatively" is not breaking any Laws.

AJM8125 · 4th January 2021, 05:47 PM

I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly:

17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right?

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back.

Calling it like I see it. YMMV.

angrysoba · 4th January 2021, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly:

17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right?

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back.

Calling it like I see it. YMMV.

That’s why I said way back that I think the case hinges on the first shooting. If he can argue that is self/defence (and it would seem more difficult to do so give the guy was shot in the back) then he might have a self-defence case.

Whether he has the right to carry the gun also seems to be contentious. It seems odd, if it was illegal, that he hasn’t been charged with that, as far as I can see.

smartcooky · 4th January 2021, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly:

17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right?

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back.

Calling it like I see it. YMMV.

Summed up nicely.

smartcooky · 4th January 2021, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That’s why I said way back that I think the case hinges on the first shooting. If he can argue that is self/defence (and it would seem more difficult to do so give the guy was shot in the back) then he might have a self-defence case.

Whether he has the right to carry the gun also seems to be contentious. It seems odd, if it was illegal, that he hasn’t been charged with that, as far as I can see.

He has been. The charges against him are as follows

First-degree reckless homicide for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum
First-degree intentional homicide for the killing of Anthony Huber
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz
First-degree reckless endangerment against Richard McGinnis
First-degree reckless endangerment against an unknown male victim
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Violating an official curfew

angrysoba · 4th January 2021, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

He has been. The charges against him are as follows

First-degree reckless homicide for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum
First-degree intentional homicide for the killing of Anthony Huber
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz
First-degree reckless endangerment against Richard McGinnis
First-degree reckless endangerment against an unknown male victim
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Violating an official curfew

Ah, thanks!

Thermal · 4th January 2021, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly:

17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right?

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back.

Calling it like I see it. YMMV.

Re: shooting in the back: not really. Unarmed guy grabbed Captain Courageous' rifle, and was otherwise in his face. Rittenhouse cracked off 5 rounds fairly blindly, and one struck unarmed guy in the back. It's not like he took aim on a retreating back. I'd bet my left nut Rittenhouse had his eyes closed in fear while he squeezed .223 rounds off into the night, with no idea what he was hitting.

It was a freaking riot. Other protesters can be absolutely counted on to start **** somewhat randomly. If you are not ready for this, as Kyle obviously wasn't, the solution is not to bring a People Liquifier into the mix. Learn to box first, and/or learn to run faster. A place where you can expect scrapping is no place to bring that kind of hardware unless this was the endgame you planned on.

AJM8125 · 4th January 2021, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Re: shooting in the back: not really. Unarmed guy grabbed Captain Courageous' rifle, and was otherwise in his face. Rittenhouse cracked off 5 rounds fairly blindly, and one struck unarmed guy in the back. It's not like he took aim on a retreating back. I'd bet my left nut Rittenhouse had his eyes closed in fear while he squeezed .223 rounds off into the night, with no idea what he was hitting.

It was a freaking riot. Other protesters can be absolutely counted on to start **** somewhat randomly. If you are not ready for this, as Kyle obviously wasn't, the solution is not to bring a People Liquifier into the mix. Learn to box first, and/or learn to run faster. A place where you can expect scrapping is no place to bring that kind of hardware unless this was the endgame you planned on.

Ah. Then that makes him look even worse, IMO. He must've skipped the courses taught at wannabe LEO/EMT/MilitiaMan school wrt weapons safety and personal security.

RolandRat · 5th January 2021, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

There is a difference between equating and comparing. Your avoidance of the actual point is duly noted, as is your flair for the dramatic ("breathtakingly" and the rare unironic "Wow. Just wow.")

My avoidance is duly noted? Yeah whatever. You are the one equating/comparing rape victims to someone travelling to a riot and shooting people. It is so asinine it doesn't need a rebuttal.

RolandRat · 5th January 2021, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions.

Ok let's break it down shall we. Woman dresses provocatively, wanders down an alley, gets raped. Man bypasses gun laws to arm himself, travels to a protest/riot shoots one person in the back then shoots two others who trying to stop him fleeing.

Yes, two totally comparable situations. You nailed it..

SuburbanTurkey · 5th January 2021, 06:35 AM

It should be pointed out that it isn't really legally necessary for the prosecutor to paint anyone in these scuffles as the "good guy".

It's perfectly routine for all parties involved in a violent altercation to be considered engaged in criminal activity. Plenty of occasions of people fighting result in the conclusion that no party was actually engaged in lawful self-defense.

It's not really necessary to try to paint the first victim of Rittenhouse as a totally innocent party. If he were alive still, it would be entirely reasonable that he might be charged with some crime for his part in the scuffle.

I think it's entirely likely that, when the trial actually starts, Kyle's self-defense claim is absolutely going to collapse under scrutiny. I think it will be shown that he willfully and recklessly engaged in criminal provocation to escalate a tense confrontation to violence, such as pointing weapons, shoving, verbal threats, and/or other such criminal acts prior to his infamous shooting spree.

There will be plenty of evidence that some of Kyle's victims were not acting lawfully the night of the shooting, and it really won't matter, because it will be plainly obvious from the testimony and other evidence from the night that Kyle engaged in a series of criminal, violent action that obviates any good-faith self defense claim. That's my prediction.

Even among the crowd of reactionaries that traveled to a riot zone for the explicit purpose of engaging in amateur police work, Kyle is a standout. He's the only one that ended up killing anyone that night, and it's almost certainly because he was especially belligerent. Video already has surfaced that shows Kyle patrolling the streets, falsely claiming to be an EMT and inserting himself into situations throughout the chaotic riot zone. He sought out confrontation, and eventually ran into another person that was willing to be as belligerent as he was.

Carrying a rifle, perhaps Kyle believed that all his enemies would back down from the the naked threat hanging across his chest. For the vast majority of people, this is probably true. Kyle got unlucky in that he ran into someone unhinged enough to call his bluff. Sucks for Kyle's victims who were shot as a result of this escalation, and it will likely also destroy Kyle's life if he is rightly convicted.

plague311 · 5th January 2021, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

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?

The actual **** is this? No, I don't think civilians should just decide to go after other people just because they are suspected of something criminal. Kyle did that without the actual suspicion. He traveled to a location, that had no crimes happen, armed, and then engaged someone that he suspected of doing something criminal.

Originally Posted by webfusion

Across the USA, the mobs have decided they are in charge.

More irony. The mob that decided they were in charge was Kyle and his peeps.

webfusion · 10th January 2021, 09:07 AM

Just a side-note:
Kyle Rittenhouse was encountered at a bar wearing a t-shirt that proclaims "Free as F~k"

Thermal · 10th January 2021, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Just a side-note:
Kyle Rittenhouse was encountered at a bar wearing a t-shirt that proclaims "Free as F~k"

Good to hear the teen is hanging out at bars.

He'll be getting his new prison shirt soon that says "Felon and really **********"

plague311 · 13th January 2021, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Good to hear the teen is hanging out at bars.

I didn't know this about Wisconsin, because who cares about Wisconsin amiright? Apparently if you're with a direct family member that is over 21 you can not only enter a bar, but you can legally drink in it. So he was out on bail and drinking in a bar, in public, wearing that shirt. Any good attorney would have advised against that move, thankfully Lin Wood is not a good attorney and Rittenhouse probably didn't ask. It's all about the lulz for him right now.

SuburbanTurkey · 13th January 2021, 07:37 AM

I imagine the temptation to experience adulthood is pretty strong, as there's a fair chance Rittenhouse will be starting a decades long prison term in the near future. I don't really care what Kyle's up to while pending trial as long as he's not committing any other violent felonies or whipping up reactionaries to do the same.

I'm not really seeing how lin wood is actually his attorney in any meaningful sense, other than PR grifting. Rittenhouse has a regular (read: not crazy) criminal attorney for his multiple felony case, and Lin Wood is a defamation attorney. I'm not aware of any civil litigation from Rittenhouse at the moment.

Perhaps Wood is anticipating some sort of civil case on the assumption that Kyle is found not guilty, but as of right now, he's not really doing much for Kyle.

Wood seems to be aggressively circling the drain with his MAGA psychosis and his discussions of summary executions of national politicians. I doubt he'll be involved with Rittenhouse for much longer.

Dave Rogers · 13th January 2021, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

[…]Lin Wood is a defamation attorney.

In more than one sense.

Dave

plague311 · 13th January 2021, 08:30 AM

I actually have to correct myself. Lin Wood was only involved in fighting the extradition to Wisconsin and now he no longer represents Kyle at all. It's just the local attorney that has taken over the case.

I don't care if he goes out to a bar, but drinking is generally considered a no-no when you're facing a ton of violent felonies. The biggest reason, at least what my attorney said to me, is that you open yourself up to irrational choices while under the influence. Which, on the turn of a dime, can land you in significantly more trouble.

SuburbanTurkey · 14th January 2021, 05:14 AM

Kyle Rittenhouse flashed white power sign for selfie at bar and was serenaded by Proud Boys.

Prosecutors are filing a motion to amend his bond requirements so that he can no longer consume alcohol or associate with fascists.

Quote:

The prosecutors are now asking Rittenhouse's bond be changed to include the following:

The defendant shall be prohibited from possessing or consuming alcohol.

The defendant shall not be present in any establishment where alcohol is served.

The defendant shall be prohibited from making any public display of any “white power" or “white supremacy” signs, symbols, or hand gestures.

The defendant shall have no contact with any known militia members or known members of any violent white power/white supremacist groups or organizations, including but not limited to the group identified as the “Proud Boys.”

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news...t-pleasant-bar

I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone can chime in. Is it helpful to your defense to associate with known fascists while awaiting a jury trial for multiple murder?

Edit: Just one lawyer's advice:

Quote:

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that you hire a lawyer who will tell you—even, and perhaps especially, if you are a terrible person who deserves to be convicted—not to do this **** when you’re facing extremely serious criminal charges.

https://twitter.com/Scot_Blog/status...93966828728321

That's a good point. Terrible client control from Rittenhouse's lawyer.

plague311 · Yesterday, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

That's a good point. Terrible client control from Rittenhouse's lawyer.

I would doubt his lawyer actually had any input. Any lawyer worth his weight in dick wigs would tell you not to drink because it exponentially increases your chances of doing or saying something that will hinder your case. As we've seen here. I can't imagine why you'd go out in public and drink while awaiting trial. It's dumb as ****.

Lerxst · Yesterday, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

I would doubt his lawyer actually had any input. Any lawyer worth his weight in dick wigs would tell you not to drink because it exponentially increases your chances of doing or saying something that will hinder your case. As we've seen here. I can't imagine why you'd go out in public and drink while awaiting trial. It's dumb as ****.

He's probably been told by everyone ~~supporting~~ enabling him that he has done nothing wrong and so he truly believes that he will be acquitted. That no jury in the world will convict him and he can do whatever the **** he wants.

But yeah it's pretty ******* stupid either way.

4th January 2021, 06:10 AM	#481
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849	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"? Wow. Just wow. That is breathtakingly stupid. Are you actually equating a rape victim to someone who travelled to a protest and shot people?
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849

4th January 2021, 08:00 AM	#482
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,121	Originally Posted by webfusion I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? Yep obeying the law is for other people. Just think if the cops had actually enforced the laws he was breaking against him he would be all well and good now too. Well asside from those felony weapons charges but who ever expects white people to obey gun laws?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th January 2021, 08:05 AM	#483
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,121	Originally Posted by Thermal Right, and Master Rittenhouse was not in compliance with the hunting regs, which might have provided him an exemption. We've been through all this. Nonsense he was hunting the most dangerous game that night after all. So that gets him out of the weapons charges.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th January 2021, 08:21 AM	#484
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,121	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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. That is probably not true, I started and EMT course in NY before I turned 18. I just had to turn 18 before the test for certification. But he is certainly not an EMT.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th January 2021, 03:45 PM	#486
Doghouse Reilly Adrift on an uncharted sea Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,405	Originally Posted by RolandRat Wow. Just wow. That is breathtakingly stupid. Are you actually equating a rape victim to someone who travelled to a protest and shot people? There is a difference between equating and comparing. Your avoidance of the actual point is duly noted, as is your flair for the dramatic ("breathtakingly" and the rare unironic "Wow. Just wow.")
	Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 4th January 2021 at 03:52 PM.

4th January 2021, 03:50 PM	#487
Doghouse Reilly Adrift on an uncharted sea Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,405	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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 You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions.

4th January 2021, 04:02 PM	#488
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 12,984	Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions. Its not so much a question of absolving as irrelevance. What groups Rittenhouse's victims belonged to, or their police records, simply doesn't matter. Nor does their conduct during a riot, really. I mean, the ticket price of joining in a violent protest is that you have to check your halo at the gate. You're all bad guys. Kyle couldn't hang, so he shot everyone who got in his face. It don't work that way. That ultimately makes him far worse than the rest, by a long shot. Or at least by point blank shot with a people-killing .223.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

4th January 2021, 04:10 PM	#489
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,393	Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions. Last time I looked, a woman "dressing provocatively" is not breaking any Laws.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

4th January 2021, 05:47 PM	#490
AJM8125 Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,576	I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly: 17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right? I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back. Calling it like I see it. YMMV.
	__________________ Only a fool fights in a burning house.

4th January 2021, 06:24 PM	#491
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 28,856	Originally Posted by AJM8125 I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly: 17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right? I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back. Calling it like I see it. YMMV. That’s why I said way back that I think the case hinges on the first shooting. If he can argue that is self/defence (and it would seem more difficult to do so give the guy was shot in the back) then he might have a self-defence case. Whether he has the right to carry the gun also seems to be contentious. It seems odd, if it was illegal, that he hasn’t been charged with that, as far as I can see.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

4th January 2021, 06:29 PM	#492
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,393	Originally Posted by AJM8125 I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly: 17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right? I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back. Calling it like I see it. YMMV. Summed up nicely.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

4th January 2021, 06:37 PM	#493
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,393	Originally Posted by angrysoba That’s why I said way back that I think the case hinges on the first shooting. If he can argue that is self/defence (and it would seem more difficult to do so give the guy was shot in the back) then he might have a self-defence case. Whether he has the right to carry the gun also seems to be contentious. It seems odd, if it was illegal, that he hasn’t been charged with that, as far as I can see. He has been. The charges against him are as follows First-degree reckless homicide for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum First-degree intentional homicide for the killing of Anthony Huber Attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz First-degree reckless endangerment against Richard McGinnis First-degree reckless endangerment against an unknown male victim Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 Violating an official curfew
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 4th January 2021 at 07:03 PM.

4th January 2021, 08:48 PM	#494
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 28,856	Originally Posted by smartcooky He has been. The charges against him are as follows First-degree reckless homicide for the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum First-degree intentional homicide for the killing of Anthony Huber Attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz First-degree reckless endangerment against Richard McGinnis First-degree reckless endangerment against an unknown male victim Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 Violating an official curfew Ah, thanks!
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

4th January 2021, 09:27 PM	#495
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 12,984	Originally Posted by AJM8125 I've just recently started following this thread and at the risk of being seen as trying a fringe reset (i'm not), I'm trying to see if I'm gathering this correctly: 17 year-old kid shows up at a riot open carrying rifle he has no legal right to be in possession of and is violating a curfew order, shoots a man in the back, killing him, murders another and grievously wounds yet another (both of whom were attempting to stop the kid) and the argument is this was done in self defense because some unknown person fired off a round during the pursuit? Do I have this right? I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and firmly believe in the right to self defense but I don't see where either applies to this case. The way I see it, there's no right to be carrying the rifle and any right to self defense was forfeited once the kid (for any goddamned reason) shot a man in the back. Calling it like I see it. YMMV. Re: shooting in the back: not really. Unarmed guy grabbed Captain Courageous' rifle, and was otherwise in his face. Rittenhouse cracked off 5 rounds fairly blindly, and one struck unarmed guy in the back. It's not like he took aim on a retreating back. I'd bet my left nut Rittenhouse had his eyes closed in fear while he squeezed .223 rounds off into the night, with no idea what he was hitting. It was a freaking riot. Other protesters can be absolutely counted on to start **** somewhat randomly. If you are not ready for this, as Kyle obviously wasn't, the solution is not to bring a People Liquifier into the mix. Learn to box first, and/or learn to run faster. A place where you can expect scrapping is no place to bring that kind of hardware unless this was the endgame you planned on.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

4th January 2021, 10:40 PM	#496
AJM8125 Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,576	Originally Posted by Thermal Re: shooting in the back: not really. Unarmed guy grabbed Captain Courageous' rifle, and was otherwise in his face. Rittenhouse cracked off 5 rounds fairly blindly, and one struck unarmed guy in the back. It's not like he took aim on a retreating back. I'd bet my left nut Rittenhouse had his eyes closed in fear while he squeezed .223 rounds off into the night, with no idea what he was hitting. It was a freaking riot. Other protesters can be absolutely counted on to start **** somewhat randomly. If you are not ready for this, as Kyle obviously wasn't, the solution is not to bring a People Liquifier into the mix. Learn to box first, and/or learn to run faster. A place where you can expect scrapping is no place to bring that kind of hardware unless this was the endgame you planned on. Ah. Then that makes him look even worse, IMO. He must've skipped the courses taught at wannabe LEO/EMT/MilitiaMan school wrt weapons safety and personal security.
	__________________ Only a fool fights in a burning house.

5th January 2021, 02:11 AM	#497
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849	Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly There is a difference between equating and comparing. Your avoidance of the actual point is duly noted, as is your flair for the dramatic ("breathtakingly" and the rare unironic "Wow. Just wow.") My avoidance is duly noted? Yeah whatever. You are the one equating/comparing rape victims to someone travelling to a riot and shooting people. It is so asinine it doesn't need a rebuttal.
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849

5th January 2021, 02:14 AM	#498
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849	Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly You didn't help. The point is that the foolish or illegal actions of one person (and I am very willing to acknowledge Rittenhouse's stupid or illegal actions) do not absolve others of their own stupid or illegal actions. Ok let's break it down shall we. Woman dresses provocatively, wanders down an alley, gets raped. Man bypasses gun laws to arm himself, travels to a protest/riot shoots one person in the back then shoots two others who trying to stop him fleeing. Yes, two totally comparable situations. You nailed it..
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 849	Last edited by RolandRat; 5th January 2021 at 02:15 AM.

5th January 2021, 06:35 AM	#499
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,106	It should be pointed out that it isn't really legally necessary for the prosecutor to paint anyone in these scuffles as the "good guy". It's perfectly routine for all parties involved in a violent altercation to be considered engaged in criminal activity. Plenty of occasions of people fighting result in the conclusion that no party was actually engaged in lawful self-defense. It's not really necessary to try to paint the first victim of Rittenhouse as a totally innocent party. If he were alive still, it would be entirely reasonable that he might be charged with some crime for his part in the scuffle. I think it's entirely likely that, when the trial actually starts, Kyle's self-defense claim is absolutely going to collapse under scrutiny. I think it will be shown that he willfully and recklessly engaged in criminal provocation to escalate a tense confrontation to violence, such as pointing weapons, shoving, verbal threats, and/or other such criminal acts prior to his infamous shooting spree. There will be plenty of evidence that some of Kyle's victims were not acting lawfully the night of the shooting, and it really won't matter, because it will be plainly obvious from the testimony and other evidence from the night that Kyle engaged in a series of criminal, violent action that obviates any good-faith self defense claim. That's my prediction. Even among the crowd of reactionaries that traveled to a riot zone for the explicit purpose of engaging in amateur police work, Kyle is a standout. He's the only one that ended up killing anyone that night, and it's almost certainly because he was especially belligerent. Video already has surfaced that shows Kyle patrolling the streets, falsely claiming to be an EMT and inserting himself into situations throughout the chaotic riot zone. He sought out confrontation, and eventually ran into another person that was willing to be as belligerent as he was. Carrying a rifle, perhaps Kyle believed that all his enemies would back down from the the naked threat hanging across his chest. For the vast majority of people, this is probably true. Kyle got unlucky in that he ran into someone unhinged enough to call his bluff. Sucks for Kyle's victims who were shot as a result of this escalation, and it will likely also destroy Kyle's life if he is rightly convicted.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 5th January 2021 at 06:43 AM.

5th January 2021, 11:58 AM	#500
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,377	Originally Posted by webfusion 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? The actual ** is this? No, I don't think civilians should just decide to go after other people just because they are suspected of something criminal. Kyle did that without the actual suspicion. He traveled to a location, that had no crimes happen, armed, and then engaged someone that he suspected of doing something criminal. Originally Posted by webfusion** Across the USA, the mobs have decided they are in charge. More irony. The mob that decided they were in charge was Kyle and his peeps.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss Last edited by plague311; 5th January 2021 at 12:39 PM.

10th January 2021, 09:07 AM	#501
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,461	Just a side-note: Kyle Rittenhouse was encountered at a bar wearing a t-shirt that proclaims "Free as F~k"
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,461

10th January 2021, 12:08 PM	#502
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 12,984	Originally Posted by webfusion Just a side-note: Kyle Rittenhouse was encountered at a bar wearing a t-shirt that proclaims "Free as F~k" Good to hear the teen is hanging out at bars. He'll be getting his new prison shirt soon that says "Felon and really **********"
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

13th January 2021, 07:23 AM	#503
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,377	Originally Posted by Thermal Good to hear the teen is hanging out at bars. I didn't know this about Wisconsin, because who cares about Wisconsin amiright? Apparently if you're with a direct family member that is over 21 you can not only enter a bar, but you can legally drink in it. So he was out on bail and drinking in a bar, in public, wearing that shirt. Any good attorney would have advised against that move, thankfully Lin Wood is not a good attorney and Rittenhouse probably didn't ask. It's all about the lulz for him right now.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

13th January 2021, 07:37 AM	#504
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,106	I imagine the temptation to experience adulthood is pretty strong, as there's a fair chance Rittenhouse will be starting a decades long prison term in the near future. I don't really care what Kyle's up to while pending trial as long as he's not committing any other violent felonies or whipping up reactionaries to do the same. I'm not really seeing how lin wood is actually his attorney in any meaningful sense, other than PR grifting. Rittenhouse has a regular (read: not crazy) criminal attorney for his multiple felony case, and Lin Wood is a defamation attorney. I'm not aware of any civil litigation from Rittenhouse at the moment. Perhaps Wood is anticipating some sort of civil case on the assumption that Kyle is found not guilty, but as of right now, he's not really doing much for Kyle. Wood seems to be aggressively circling the drain with his MAGA psychosis and his discussions of summary executions of national politicians. I doubt he'll be involved with Rittenhouse for much longer.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 13th January 2021 at 07:42 AM.

13th January 2021, 07:46 AM	#505
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,180	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey […]Lin Wood is a defamation attorney. In more than one sense. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

13th January 2021, 08:30 AM	#506
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,377	I actually have to correct myself. Lin Wood was only involved in fighting the extradition to Wisconsin and now he no longer represents Kyle at all. It's just the local attorney that has taken over the case. I don't care if he goes out to a bar, but drinking is generally considered a no-no when you're facing a ton of violent felonies. The biggest reason, at least what my attorney said to me, is that you open yourself up to irrational choices while under the influence. Which, on the turn of a dime, can land you in significantly more trouble.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

14th January 2021, 05:14 AM	#507
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,106	Kyle Rittenhouse flashed white power sign for selfie at bar and was serenaded by Proud Boys. Prosecutors are filing a motion to amend his bond requirements so that he can no longer consume alcohol or associate with fascists. Quote: The prosecutors are now asking Rittenhouse's bond be changed to include the following: The defendant shall be prohibited from possessing or consuming alcohol. The defendant shall not be present in any establishment where alcohol is served. The defendant shall be prohibited from making any public display of any “white power" or “white supremacy” signs, symbols, or hand gestures. The defendant shall have no contact with any known militia members or known members of any violent white power/white supremacist groups or organizations, including but not limited to the group identified as the “Proud Boys.” https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news...t-pleasant-bar I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone can chime in. Is it helpful to your defense to associate with known fascists while awaiting a jury trial for multiple murder? Edit: Just one lawyer's advice: Quote: I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that you hire a lawyer who will tell you—even, and perhaps especially, if you are a terrible person who deserves to be convicted—not to do this **** when you’re facing extremely serious criminal charges. https://twitter.com/Scot_Blog/status...93966828728321 That's a good point. Terrible client control from Rittenhouse's lawyer.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 14th January 2021 at 05:19 AM.

Yesterday, 01:36 PM	#508
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,377	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey That's a good point. Terrible client control from Rittenhouse's lawyer. I would doubt his lawyer actually had any input. Any lawyer worth his weight in dick wigs would tell you not to drink because it exponentially increases your chances of doing or saying something that will hinder your case. As we've seen here. I can't imagine why you'd go out in public and drink while awaiting trial. It's dumb as ****.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Yesterday, 03:41 PM	#509
Lerxst Muse Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Big D Posts: 668	Originally Posted by plague311 I would doubt his lawyer actually had any input. Any lawyer worth his weight in dick wigs would tell you not to drink because it exponentially increases your chances of doing or saying something that will hinder your case. As we've seen here. I can't imagine why you'd go out in public and drink while awaiting trial. It's dumb as **. He's probably been told by everyone ~~supporting~~ enabling him that he has done nothing wrong and so he truly believes that he will be acquitted. That no jury in the world will convict him and he can do whatever the he wants. But yeah it's pretty ***** stupid either way.