Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

Moby said:
It's not a problem of grasping it, a lot of us live in societies and laws that protect us as civilians from exactly these situations so it is pretty relevant to apply the correct standards to it, not the standards US has wrapped around their people. There are regions in my county which are completely lawless, where a 5 year old kid would be equipped with a gun and allowed to use it freely and what not. That doesn't mean I should say oh ok, the police are shit and corrupt, the people in that whole state are used to others having guns in the open and as a result unsurprisingly people die from gun violence all the time.

Rather think about what your values around protection of human life are and where this dude stands as someone who had zero regards for his own or anyone else's safety doing what he did. You can defend the person in that situation saying they didn't break any laws so it's cool, or you can look at it and say people lost their lives because of one person's actions, and they should be punished for it.
Click to expand...

There should be a general nationwide law for reckless endangerment (there is in some states but there isn't in others) that could be used to prevent events like this or at least charge them with something that would be clear conviction. The reckless endangerment Rittenhouse is charged with is more specific.

Additionally, there is talk of looking at the illegality of these ad-hoc armed militias just self-declaring they are protecting property and patrolling the streets heavily armed. You'd like to think we'd see some changes but America really has some fecked up values.

"We need to step back from this militia nonsense. These private paramilitaries are illegal and should be treated as such by the authorities. Perhaps, in the past, it was thought that clamping down on these “Red Dawn”cosplayers wasn’t worth the political headache. But while we do nothing, they continue to embed themselves in political protests, and one day soon, we’ll find that it’s just too perilous to exercise our First Amendment rights in the public square."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...rivate-paramilitaries-are-illegal-ncna1239397
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You're just using the entire defense narrative and using language that was never proven.

"Ambush" is not a fact based on the video. As the prosecution argued, someone is shouting "gun gun gun" so in that case, it would be reasonable to assume Rosembaum charged a potential threat who had just run into the situation with an AR-15 at the ready. You have yet to ever explain why Rittenhouse is running into that situation. From the video, Rittenhouse certainly appeared threatening and provocative running after that group.
Click to expand...

They say 'let's get him' , Rosenbaum hides behind a car, Ziminski confronts Rittenhouse with his gun out and Rosenbaum comes up from behind.

We're never going to agree on the facts. As I have said, outside of prosecution argument noone is saying Rittenhouse was pursuing them. Even TYT have withdrawn that interpretation.
 
VorZakone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Using @Raven 's logic that I agree with, I'm pretty sure that Kyle getting into this kind of a situation already shows that he's a pussy tbf. Because... well. You don't find yourself in this situation unless you go to a riot/protest with a rifle.
 
Drainy said:
They say 'let's get him' , Rosenbaum hides behind a car, Ziminski confronts Rittenhouse with his gun out and Rosenbaum comes up from behind.

We're never going to agree on the facts. As I have said, outside of prosecution argument noone is saying Rittenhouse was pursuing them. Even TYT have withdrawn that interpretation.
Click to expand...

It's not clear where that is coming from and it makes a lot of sense if someone shouts "gun, gun, gun" after Rittenhouse has already rushed into the situation then that act would be reasonable.

Here is the video you even linked where you can clearly see Rittenhouse running after the group before Rosembaum ever charges after Rittenhouse.

https://rumble.com/vom95n-human-eve...re-seen-fbi-footage-of-the-kyle-rittenho.html

1:28 to 1:33 you can clearly see Rittenhouse running directly after the group with his AR-15 at the ready. It's only after Rittenhouse runs that someone, somewhere (not clear even who says it or where) says "get him" which is a reasonable statement if people are fearing for their life because an armed man is running right after them.

I could also say literally no one outside the defense is arguing "ambush"., oh and maybe the far-right propaganda outlets.
 
Raven said:
The guy with the skateboard had seen and heard other people being shot by this guy. Yes, he probably should have ran and hid but he decided to try and disarm someone he probably felt was an enormous danger to him and everyone around him.
Click to expand...
How certain are you of skateboard guy’s perception, thought process and decision making?
 
choiboyx012 said:
How certain are you of skateboard guy’s perception, thought process and decision making?
Click to expand...

How certain are you of Rittenhouse's perception, thought process, and decision-making?

I don't think any of us can be certain of the perception and thought process of any of the actors that night, hence why reasonable (and some unreasonable) interpretations will differ.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Noted. I think your interpretation is a real stretch. But we’re all going to have different perceptions of what we think is objective and reasonable.
Click to expand...
A stretch? Why the feck else would someone approach an active shooter? :lol:
 
Raven said:
Right, so far we only have the reason I've given as a possibility, unless you have any alternatives, it doesn't seem like a stretch at all.
Click to expand...
You and others have already given the other possibility of staying away and hiding, especially if he’s an “active mass shooter”. I doubt a jury would think he was just helping save lives from an active shooter, but you just never know with jurors.
 
choiboyx012 said:
You and others have already given the other possibility of staying away and hiding, especially if he’s an “active mass shooter”. I doubt a jury would think he was just helping save lives from an active shooter, but you just never know with jurors.
Click to expand...
Except I asked why he would approach him, not what his alternatives were.
 
Had they been able to the protesters would certainly have killed him.

However the fact he was there with a gun says to me he definitely went there hoping to shoot someone rather than helping anybody.

He needs to go to jail
 
Its very weird that the circumstances of this occurring are fairly easy to understand with America and its kind of easy to understand how he's probably going to get off.
Have to feel their attitude to guns is severely broken when that seems to be the case.
 
caid said:
Its very weird that the circumstances of this occurring are fairly easy to understand with America and its kind of easy to understand how he's probably going to get off.
Have to feel their attitude to guns is severely broken when that seems to be the case.
Click to expand...

The attitude here towards guns is abominable. I will never understand the fascination with instruments whose invention and evolution have followed the path of one directive: Find the best way to kill as fast and as many people as possible. I don't care if you own guns to target shoot. The reason you are holding that thing in your hand is because someone had an idea predicated on the concept of improving the ability to kill. We should be ashamed.
 
Raven said:
Except I asked why he would approach him, not what his alternatives were.
Click to expand...
Yea I’m trying to put myself in his shoes and I still don’t know why he would do something so idiotic. Maybe a thirst for blood of a right wing militia scum and a golden opportunity when Kyle is on the ground.
 
lsd said:
Had they been able to the protesters would certainly have killed him.

However the fact he was there with a gun says to me he definitely went there hoping to shoot someone rather than helping anybody.

He needs to go to jail
Click to expand...

Like the guy who pointed a glock at kyle's head before he was shot in the arm. Or all the other people caught on camera firing shots that night?
 
choiboyx012 said:
Yea I’m trying to put myself in his shoes and I still don’t know why he would do something so idiotic. Maybe a thirst for blood of a right wing militia scum and a golden opportunity when Kyle is on the ground.
Click to expand...
At this point we are contemplating the possibilities similar to what would be for a hostage in a terrorist situation where them taking any action would end up in losing their lives given the aggressor is pretty much not gonna having a second thought before killing someone in cold blood. Which pretty much sums up the situation here.
 
Gehrman said:
Like the guy who pointed a glock at kyle's head before he was shot in the arm. Or all the other people caught on camera firing shots that night?
Click to expand...

Are they on trial? Kyle is the one on trial here he is the one who went there with the gun and that is all that should be considered here.

It's not a whatabout case
 
lsd said:
Had they been able to the protesters would certainly have killed him.

However the fact he was there with a gun says to me he definitely went there hoping to shoot someone rather than helping anybody.

He needs to go to jail
Click to expand...
 
Being bashed in the head by an object like a skateboard is pretty lethal. At full force it's very deadly and potentially damaging. Once he's down and being hit by it he has all the rights for self defense.

Should have been there, shouldn't have been there, who's provoking whom is not the essence. Even if you're the instigator of the fight, being hit is always a cause for self defense.

Even if Kyle's guilty of anything else, it's not on them to jump on him. Being provoked verbally or by posture is not a justification for assault.
 
Moby said:
At this point we are contemplating the possibilities similar to what would be for a hostage in a terrorist situation where them taking any action would end up in losing their lives given the aggressor is pretty much not gonna having a second thought before killing someone in cold blood. Which pretty much sums up the situation here.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you think these situations are similar
 
Moby said:
At this point we are contemplating the possibilities similar to what would be for a hostage in a terrorist situation where them taking any action would end up in losing their lives given the aggressor is pretty much not gonna having a second thought before killing someone in cold blood. Which pretty much sums up the situation here.
Click to expand...

But if you have seen the footage its not at all the same. He's on the run and after tripping and being attacked by a mob manages to shoot the guy with the glock in the arm rather than kill him.

You are not a hostage if the suspect is running away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.