Wisconsin and then North Carolina forever it is then. Ah well, it was a good dream.
Edit: Also, you think I would tell my wife about this place? She already thinks I waste time doing other useless shit.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Wisconsin and then North Carolina forever it is then. Ah well, it was a good dream.
Edit: Also, you think I would tell my wife about this place? She already thinks I waste time doing other useless shit.
His friend has been charged with 2 felonies and took the stand for the prosecution in an effort to get reduced charges.
Good article with a lot of background
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante
e - echoing some other posts here - at the place itself it seems to be borderline self-defence, but i can't get over him going, armed, out of his way, so that a confrontation became so much likelier. don't know what the charge is for that. felony murder can be really ridiculous if the prosecutors/cops want it to be.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante
e - echoing some other posts here - at the place itself it seems to be borderline self-defence, but i can't get over him going, armed, out of his way, so that a confrontation became so much likelier. don't know what the charge is for that. felony murder can be really ridiculous if the prosecutors/cops want it to be.
Last edited:
Is there a chance he does more time than Rittenhouse?
Is there a chance he does more time than Rittenhouse?
Probably not. It's likely the lawyer and prosecution agreed an informal plea agreement outside of the knowledge of Black to evade conflicts questions.
Expect the hearing in January to be vacated and plea submitted soon after the verdict.
I'm going to jump in here and hope I don't get ridiculed, but you've said you've never used a gun before and keep arguing this point and at every turn you have people with a lot of gun experience arguing otherwise, and these people like @Carolina Red want Kyle to pay massively for what he's done so there is zero bias in their viewpoint.
I think it's well established that in that scenario, guilty of murder or not, firing 4 shots wouldn't be unusual at the least.
I also have never used a gun but I will defer to theirs and others judgements.
You really want to die without having a gun pointed in your face?
That sounds downright un-patriotic.
Yesterday the prosecution started their closing really well.
They were very eloquent and persuasive up until the break. After that it was a shit show. A lot of their closing was very loosely connected with the evidence, and some of the evidence was dodgy so trust was essential for them.
Once the defence spoke and attacked the credibility of the prosecution, then laid down the facts logically linked to the videos and testimony, they were left with Twitch arguments.
Also saying 'sometimes you have to take a beating', what the feck were they thinking?
They were very eloquent and persuasive up until the break. After that it was a shit show. A lot of their closing was very loosely connected with the evidence, and some of the evidence was dodgy so trust was essential for them.
Once the defence spoke and attacked the credibility of the prosecution, then laid down the facts logically linked to the videos and testimony, they were left with Twitch arguments.
Also saying 'sometimes you have to take a beating', what the feck were they thinking?
Did they really suggest that as an alternative to pulling the trigger?
There are so many other possibilities between these two extremes.YepIs there a chance he does more time than Rittenhouse?
Did they really suggest that as an alternative to pulling the trigger?
Yep, they argued he should have put his gun down and engaged in fisticuffs and said he wasn't 'man enough' to do that.
To be fair, shooting unarmed people is the ultimate pussy move. It's like beating up children, or women (which he also does).
The entire ethos of gun ownership in the US is based around personal protection from people seeking to harm you, so ultimately it wouldn’t matter if they were armed with guns, knives, any other object, or no object at all. The justification for self-protection will always be privileged in these cases, especially in situations where one is being attacked by others.
Will it...
I mean if a far left black lives matter activist had illegally brought a rifle and taken it to a maga rally then shot a couple of white folks because they didn't like him pointing a gun at them I personally think it would have gone kinda differently in the courts
Perhaps I'm wrong but certainly the impression I get looking from the outside
That guy wouldn't have made it alive past the cops to stand a trial in court.
They probably wouldn’t get into the event because of security. This was a riotous mob, which wouldn’t go unnoticed by those deliberating the verdict.
I don't care about any of that. All I'm saying is that if you shoot unarmed people, you're a pussy.
Nail on the head.
It doesn’t matter if they don’t have firearms (even though some were in fact armed). The only factor that would justify him using it is self-defense because he thought he would get killed - whether by getting kicked to death, by blunt force trauma to the head by objects (such as skateboards) or by a mob of people in pursuit.
Madness. Surely they could have picked holes into his testimony that there were 100 people in his way from running away further (and then suddenly they weren't) instead of going down that route?
Again, I don't care about any of that. He is a pussy for shooting unarmed people. Just as he is a pussy for punching a woman.
How should he have protected himself? The argument of "he shouldn't have been there in the first place" is a moot point, the reality is he was there. So what should he have done to get toughness points?
Where do you live? Is the only response you have for someone running towards you/jumping at you shooting them dead?
They were seething when arguing so I don't think they were thinking too hard about what they were saying.
They did try arguing that in the closing but defence proved they were wrong so they were scrabbling in the rebuttal
Last edited:
Ha, I don't have a gun nor would I even be legally allowed to have a gun where I live. But my personal situation is irrelevant though. Given Kyle's position, what should he have done to not be called a pussy by Raven? Curious as to what his behavior should have been according to him.
Don’t be daft.
It would never have reached the courts, the cops would have put 1,000 bullets in them.
If the only response you can think of while reacting to violence in an unsettled crowd is carrying a gun and shooting people then you shouldn't be allowed to get out of your home. If you have to be in such a situation, you should not be allowed to carry arms and be trained in other methods of dealing with the situation and defending yourself. Most countries in the world work exactly like that without any issue. Just because the US is still living in the cowboy era where people draw a gun and shoot at someone because they were staring at them doesn't mean that's the standard we should accept or condone.
The reason you aren't allowed to carry a firearm openly where you live is precisely to avoid any situation like this and guess what, it works. And even in a lot of countries where violence is commonplace (like mine) if someone fires a gun in a riot or an unsettled situation, they are the first one to accused, and they aren't defended by people saying they had no other way to defend themselves. You know, like anyone with an iota of common sense and respect for human life would do.
This is all besides the point of why I quoted Raven. He called Kyle a pussy for shooting unarmed people, so I asked what should he have done then? Use his fists? Answer the question.
Yeah? Do you not know of self defense methods besides firing fatal shots at an unarmed aggressor?
Firstly, not bring a weapon of mass extinction. Secondly, who the feck cares, if you bring an instrument of war to a protest, you're responsible for any death that happens as a result.
To be less of a pussy, simply don't use a gun on unarmed people.
Yes, use his fists. Take the hiding his behaviour deserved.
So if someone attacked you with a skateboard, and you had a gun, you would be fine shooting the person dead before thinking of doing anything else?
I thought he shot 4 people, no? Ahh good, we're now counting skateboards as deadly weapons, class.
He also tried to retreat from everyone who attacked him.
Rosenbaum is running as fast as he can at him and doesn't get shot until he lunges to grab the gun.
Jump Kick Man stomps on his face with heavy boots from a running jump and doesn't get shot at until he makes contact with his head.
Huber hits him in the head with a skateboard and doesn't get shot until he tries to strip the gun away and the gun is away from Rittenhouse's body
Grosskreutz holds his hands up and doesn't get shot until he moves to point his pistol at Rittenhouse's head.
Everyone else who wasn't an imminent threat to Rittenhouse's safety wasn't shot, including 2 people who are approaching him to attack and hold their hands up and back off. All shootings were split second decisions and show restraint in his decision making, almost like he didn't want to shoot but felt in danger. He still had 20 bullets left so ammo wasn't a concern.
So was there people in his way or could he have simply run?
(and/or maybe fired a warning shot … not that I’m saying that’d be a good idea, just thinking out loud of possible alts he had available).
Not condoning anything he did but being jumped with nowhere to go is a different scenario from people being 30, 50+ yards away and having the option of simply running. (Haven’t watched trial close enough to know what his scenario was)
(edit, your post same time as mine maybe covers)
If you're outnumbered and think you're about to die, then you go with the method that works best to repel the aggressors - whether armed or not.
You should only fire a gun when aimed at a target you mean to destroy and a legally able to do so. Warning shots are dangerous and highly illegal.
There were a lot of people on in that area smashing up cars and the Ziminskis where there firing a gun and yelling get him. The protesters/ rioters only scattered after the 4 shots at Rosenbaum, some move a little after the Ziminski shot but that was 2 seconds earlier in the timeline.
And that's bad (shooting somebody with a skateboard). That isn't controversial for me at all. And I'm not making Rittenhouse out to be some innocent kid here.
So with that being said, how should he have defended himself against the lethally armed men?
You think they would have taken an interest if he wasn't following them with an assault rifle?
Cheers.
Looks like he made a stupid decision to go, got himself caught up in something he couldn’t get out of and made a split second decision?
(still not saying that’s right mind.. for lots of reasons)