Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[*Nately120*]

(11-03-2021, 08:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That all makes sense. I, too, prefer conceal and carry.

Seems like the way to go if you value safety and security over showing off.  

[GMDino]

(11-03-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Figured I would bring this over here for a response to prevent continued derailing.


Honestly, the last part of your post is why most responsible gun owners favor concealed carry. In most situations, open carry just makes you a target. Military and LE open carry for two reasons. One, a show of force, and two, easier access in a situation where it may be needed. But with that comes an amount of training that far exceeds the amount the general public will ever receive as well as a whole list of policies covering when to draw, shoot, etc.

Meanwhile, there is a part of the firearms industry that is focused on making firearms and holsters that can be carried without anyone knowing they are there. This is used for backups for LE, but it also used by most of us that carry on a regular basis. I go through my day with a Glock 26 at my 4-o'clock, and no one really knows it's there. For when I have to go somewhere it isn't welcome (e.g. work, courthouse, doctor), I have a lockbox for it. I don't advertise I have a firearm with me. I don't put any firearms related stickers on my car, even, because that just advertises that there could be one in the vehicle making you a target for theft.

There is a time and a place for open carry, but those are very few and far between for the civilian populous. If you are carrying to protect yourself, concealed is generally the best way to go. Open carry makes you a target, which is what it did for Rittenhouse. Note, though, just like a woman wearing skimpy clothes doesn't remove their victim status in a sexual assault, open carrying doesn't remove the victim status in an assault. I think that last point is where we are seeing so many on the left having a hard time with their cognitive dissonance on the issue.

I think most of us understand the self-defense in this case and there hasn't been that much disagreement unless about the legality of it, just more of a discussion about the way everyone made decisions that led to two people being killed.

Your point about open carry, for example, kind of goes with the discussion about him going there "looking for trouble".  He may have found it without that but he was more of a target with it.  Does that make attacking him right?  Of course not.  But as part of a larger discussion about how to try and avoid these kids of situations in the future it is worth noting.  I don't like the comparison to a woman who dresses skimpily though.  He wasn't walking down his street, hanging out with friends, etc.  He went to a place that was already stirred up.  If a woman dressed like a street-walker and walked into a house of ill-repute it wouldn't be surprising to have someone think she worked there.  And it would still be wrong for someone to force themselves on her.  But she couldn't act surprised that there was a misunderstanding.  Rittenhouse can't be surprised he ran into conflict when there was plenty of conflict there already.  That'd doesn't mean he didn't legally defend himself either.  Just discussing the outside issues.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-02-2021, 11:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My friend, literally nothing you cited has any bearing on a claim of acting in self defense.  That being said, I am more than prepared for you to explain why any of them detract from Rittenhouse's defense that he was defending himself from people attacking him.

He was charged with homicide. And then a couple variations of homicide. I think most people who if they had a family member killed in the middle of the street at night by a kid from out of state with a rifle during a riot would want a trial to get some facts and wouldn’t just brush it off easily with a self defense claim like you want.

When someone is killed in this manner I think a trial is in order. I’m not saying any of those things detract from his self defense claim. I’m saying a trial is warranted considering those circumstances.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 07:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, first off, this is one of the reasons I am in full favor of SCOTUS fully investing the 5th Amendment. Constitutionally speaking, there should have been a grand jury delivering those indictments. But that's a whole other conversation.

Second, I am highly skeptical of anything Posobiec is involved in. I mean, we don't know for sure who is yelling about medical or what not. But, that also doesn't matter. We have seen no evidence that Rittenhouse initiated the altercation and this video backs that up. Being present with a firearm doesn't mean you are now open to assault, as much as some people would like that to be the case.

I agree, which is why I prefaced my statements on that video as being predicated on the accuracy of the subtitles and who they were attributed to.  But it is a new piece of footage that I had not previously seen and it does clearly show that Rosenbaum initiated the violence and that Kyle did nothing that would justify his being attacked.

(11-03-2021, 08:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That all makes sense. I, too, prefer conceal and carry.

I loathe open carry, and have been very vocal about it here forever.  To the point that some of the more pro-2A posters at the time accused me of not being pro-2A.  For all the reasons Bel stated, plus they just make you a nice juicy target to get robbed of your gun.

(11-03-2021, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think most of us understand the self-defense in this case and there hasn't been that much disagreement unless about the legality of it, just more of a discussion about the way everyone made decisions that led to two people being killed.

Your point about open carry, for example, kind of goes with the discussion about him going there "looking for trouble".  He may have found it without that but he was more of a target with it.  Does that make attacking him right?  Of course not.  But as part of a larger discussion about how to try and avoid these kids of situations in the future it is worth noting.  I don't like the comparison to a woman who dresses skimpily though.  He wasn't walking down his street, hanging out with friends, etc.  He went to a place that was already stirred up.  If a woman dressed like a street-walker and walked into a house of ill-repute it wouldn't be surprising to have someone think she worked there.  And it would still be wrong for someone to force themselves on her.  But she couldn't act surprised that there was a misunderstanding.  Rittenhouse can't be surprised he ran into conflict when there was plenty of conflict there already.  That'd doesn't mean he didn't legally defend himself either.  Just discussing the outside issues.

Respectfully, there's been a lot of discussion of the legality of Rittenhouse's actions.  While you've basically conceded that he acted in self defense many others in this thread have not.

(11-03-2021, 12:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: He was charged with homicide. And then a couple variations of homicide. I think most people who if they had a family member killed in the middle of the street at night by a kid from out of state with a rifle during a riot would want a trial to get some facts and wouldn’t just brush it off easily with a self defense claim like you want.

When someone is killed in this manner I think a trial is in order. I’m not saying any of those things detract from his self defense claim. I’m saying a trial is warranted considering those circumstances.

So you have no evidence?  None of what you stated here is evidence of his guilt or the inadequacy of his claim of self defense.  What the family of the deceased want is irrelevant, what the law says is.  I've seen family members of gang members who were shot by police, after shooting at police, demand "justice" and the officers involved to be charged with murder.  Should we charge those officers with murder because of that, or should we look at the facts of the circumstance and then apply the law to those facts to determine if a law has been broken?


Bottom line, there is reams of video, and other, evidence that literally prove Kyle acted in self defense.  There is not one shred of evidence that I have thus far seen that counters that or shows Kyle initiating the violence.  These charges should never have been filed, it was done purely for political reasons and everyone involved in the prosecution of this case should be honestly ashamed of themselves.  Although based on their opening statement yesterday the prosecution could be throwing this case.  But that, of course, is pure speculation.

[masonbengals fan]

(11-03-2021, 08:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Seems like the way to go if you value safety and security over showing off.  

This...

[GMDino]

(11-03-2021, 12:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: He was charged with homicide. And then a couple variations of homicide. I think most people who if they had a family member killed in the middle of the street at night by a kid from out of state with a rifle during a riot would want a trial to get some facts and wouldn’t just brush it off easily with a self defense claim like you want.

When someone is killed in this manner I think a trial is in order. I’m not saying any of those things detract from his self defense claim. I’m saying a trial is warranted considering those circumstances.

I think this might be over the top the other way when the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on your side.

In the opening statement of the Rittenhouse trial, his attorney argues he was justified in shooting the victim carrying a skateboard, since it’s possible to decapitate someone with a skateboard if you decide to use it as a deadly weapon. pic.twitter.com/T9ji9VSlpN

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 2, 2021

Or maybe he's saying Rittenhouse should have carried a skateboard?

But I also get that attorneys will shoot for the moon to defend their clients.

[CJD]

(11-03-2021, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I loathe open carry, and have been very vocal about it here forever.  To the point that some of the more pro-2A posters at the time accused me of not being pro-2A.  For all the reasons Bel stated, plus they just make you a nice juicy target to get robbed of your gun.

I imagine I'd be considered Anti-2A by those people as well, although I don't consider myself to be. So many "debates" in politics have no space for nuance. People want to be either "all the way in favor" of something or "all the way against" something, but very few topics are that simple.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

In the opening statement of the Rittenhouse trial, his attorney argues he was justified in shooting the victim carrying a skateboard, since it’s possible to decapitate someone with a skateboard if you decide to use it as a deadly weapon. pic.twitter.com/T9ji9VSlpN

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 2, 2021

Or maybe he's saying Rittenhouse should have carried a skateboard?

But I also get that attorneys will shoot for the moon to defend their clients.

This was addressed earlier in the thread.  While the decapitation comment is hyperbolic there's zero legal doubt about a skateboard being a deadly weapon.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 03:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I imagine I'd be considered Anti-2A by those people as well, although I don't consider myself to be. So many "debates" in politics have no space for nuance. People want to be either "all the way in favor" of something or "all the way against" something, but very few topics are that simple.

Yeah, and I think the Trump era really exacerbated that.  Many people have joined the "agree with me entirely or you're my enemy" camp.  I've got a few acquaintances that stopped speaking to me over my support for private firearms ownership.  As you say, no nuance allowed at all for many. 

[Dill]

(11-02-2021, 11:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I just stated all the evidence that does support it. You deem it all irrelevant. But it’s the reason we are where we are. Pretty easy to see why something of this nature would wind up in a court room and for you to be unable to comprehend that it deserves to be there is a little confusing.

I very much agree with you. When a minor illegally carrying a weapon "runs to danger" and someone gets killed, we need to examine the circumstances closely, as well as how laws may define self defense.  If people think the self defense so obvious in this case that a trial is not even warranted, that is more scary than "confusing."

In court yesterday the prosecutor insisted that "Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot," a claim which appears to rest on eyewitness testimony. https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-homicide-gun-politics-fb9a374d697f612a1f09d42d31f0fe77. 
 
This kind of thing matters, along with the fact R brought a gun to a riot, because the jury will be asked to factor "provocation" into the question of self defense, per instructions like these: "You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack." 
https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

Video will show the jury that, before the first shooting, R was chased across a parking lot by one person, Rosenbaum, who was immediately behind him, and threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, which fell far short. A handgun was fired some 40-50 yards away from Rittenhouse. The shooting which followed seconds later is not on video, but a credible eyewitness, Richie McGinnis, says the unarmed Rosenbaum, the only person near Rittenhouse, reached for the barrel of Rittenhouse’s gun. Before he could actually grab it, Rittenhouse swung the weapon around his outstretched arm and fired four shots. According to the prosecutor, two shots hit Rosenbaum’s “extremities,” causing him to fall forward. The kill shot followed—to Rosenbaum’s back.  
 
McGinnis rushed to Rosenbaum to staunch the bleeding. Without realizing (he says) to whom he was speaking to, he asked Rittenhouse, standing nearby, to call 911. Instead R, still standing over the body, calls a friend.
 https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/10/31/kenosha-wisconsin-shooting-rittenhouse-mcginniss-griffin-pkg-vpx.cnn

To determine whether this shooting was “clear self-defense,” based upon these facts, one must make inferences about Rittenhouse’s “state of mind” at the moment of the shooting. https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0805.pdf. E.g., If a “reasonable person” heard a shot 40 yds away, would he connect that too the unarmed person immediately behind him, who couldn’t have fired the shot, because the guy reached for his gun? Did he fear for his life when he shot the already downed Rosenbaum in the back? If one views this shooting through “legal and dispassionate lenses,” is Rosenbaum alone a “member of a mob” robbing a “reasonable” innocent bystander, by chance also illegally carrying a weapon during a riot? Or are both members of a mob defying a curfew order, one illegally armed and there to “run towards danger?” Is Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse BECAUSE he has a gun? How much of this can be legally irrelevant, so long as the question of who provoked whom is still relevant?

After Rittenhouse kills Rosenbaum, as he stands over the body calling a friend, bystanders finger him, correctly, as the shooter. He starts to walk away from the scene, then to run as angry people follow, apparently to prevent the shooter from “getting away.” He falls and, seeing their chance, several rush in to disarm him. One person kicks at R, and he fires wildly, missing him. Another strikes R with a “deadly weapon,” a skateboard, and is immediately shot to death. A third, with a hand gun, holds his hands up when he sees R has bead on him. Then drops his arms and R shoots him in the arm.

Is this "textbook self defense" if a shooter illegally carrying a weapon shoots two more people trying to neutralize or apprehend him? Does he get to "fear for his life," continue to generate mayhem, after he has already killed one person? It may well be if R's myriad bad/illegal decisions can be factored out by total focus on R's state of mind at the time of each shooting. We have been talking about what the videos "clearly" show, but other evidence may be factored in as well, which better frames the video action.

The legal implications of acquittal are worth consideration as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I very much agree with you. When a minor illegally carrying a weapon "runs to danger" and someone gets killed, we need to examine the circumstances closely, as well as how laws may define self defense.

Sure, but that should be done before charges are filed, not after. 

Quote:In court yesterday the prosecutor insisted that "Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot," a claim which appears to rest on eyewitness testimony. https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-homicide-gun-politics-fb9a374d697f612a1f09d42d31f0fe77. 

The did indeed, here's the quote from your article;

The prosecutor said that it is not known exactly what words were said, but it is clear that Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot.

Now, I'm reasonably certain that WI state law does not differ this radically from CA state law, but in CA words are not valid provocation to physically chase and then assault and attempt to rob someone.
 

Quote:This kind of thing matters, along with the fact R brought a gun to a riot, because the jury will be asked to factor "provocation" into the question of self defense, per instructions like these: "You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack." https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

Open carrying in a state that allows open carry is not a "provocation", it's an exercise of your rights within that state.

Quote:Video will show the jury that, before the first shooting, R was chased across a parking lot by one person, Rosenbaum, who was immediately behind him, and threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, which fell far short. A handgun was fired some 40-50 yards away from Rittenhouse. The shooting which followed seconds later is not on video, but a credible eyewitness, Richie McGinnis, says the unarmed Rosenbaum, the only person near Rittenhouse, reached for the barrel of Rittenhouse’s gun. Before he could actually grab it, Rittenhouse swung the weapon around his outstretched arm and fired four shots. According to the prosecutor, two shots hit Rosenbaum’s “extremities,” causing him to fall forward. The kill shot followed—to Rosenbaum’s back.  

Yes, Rosenburg chased Kyle down and then attempted to assault and rob him, by the prosecution's own admission.  Literally textbook self defense for Rittenhouse to respond as he did.
 

Quote:McGinnis rushed to Rosenbaum to staunch the bleeding. Without realizing (he says) to whom he was speaking to, he asked Rittenhouse, standing nearby, to call 911. Instead R, still standing over the body, calls a friend. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/10/31/kenosha-wisconsin-shooting-rittenhouse-mcginniss-griffin-pkg-vpx.cnn

Not sure how this is relevant at all.  It's rather understandable for him to be in a bit of a shaken state after such an event.

Quote:To determine whether this shooting was “clear self-defense,” based upon these facts, one must make inferences about Rittenhouse’s “state of mind” at the moment of the shooting. https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0805.pdf. E.g., If a “reasonable person” heard a shot 40 yds away, would he connect that too the unarmed person immediately behind him, who couldn’t have fired the shot, because the guy reached for his gun?

The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement.  A few things, because this statement is just mind boggling in it's absurdity.  One, his back was turned, so he's not going to be able to hear as well, because, you know, our ears point to the front.  Even if he could hear the shot perfectly there's literally zero chance he'd be able to judge that the shot came from 40 yards away, especially when he is concentrating on fleeing a mob intent on attacking him.  Lastly, and I'm guessing you're not aware of this, but firearms, even handguns, are still lethal at forty yards.  I can mag dump a man-sized target at 40 yards and get 15 out of 17 rounds within the 9-10 ring.

Quote:Did he fear for his life when he shot the already downed Rosenbaum in the back?

I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement.  You've seen the video, you've heard how quickly all four shots were fired.  Rosenbaum was struck in the back as he was falling because of the shots to his front.  This is not the same thing as Rosenbaum being shot in the back initially or him being "downed" when it happened.  Seriously, your position in this thread is just horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way.

Quote:If one views this shooting through “legal and dispassionate lenses,” is Rosenbaum alone a “member of a mob” robbing a “reasonable” innocent bystander, by chance also illegally carrying a weapon during a riot? Or are both members of a mob defying a curfew order, one illegally armed and there to “run towards danger?” Is Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse BECAUSE he has a gun? How much of this can be legally irrelevant, so long as the question of who provoked whom is still relevant?

By your and the prosecution's own admission Rittenhouse did not initiate a physical confrontation.  He also attempted to flee a physical confrontation and continued to do so.  Also, I'll reiterate, because you keep mentioning this like it's important, Rittenhouse being in possession of the gun illegally has zero, absolutely zero, bearing on the question of self defense.  No one there could possibly know that, and even if they did it would not justify their attacking him.

Quote:After Rittenhouse kills Rosenbaum, as he stands over the body calling a friend, bystanders finger him, correctly, as the shooter. He starts to walk away from the scene, then to run as angry people follow, apparently to prevent the shooter from “getting away.” He falls and, seeing their chance, several rush in to disarm him. One person kicks at R, and he fires wildly, missing him.

I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.

Quote:Another strikes R with a “deadly weapon,” a skateboard, and is immediately shot to death. A third, with a hand gun, holds his hands up when he sees R has bead on him. Then drops his arms and R shoots him in the arm.

You got this part right, except no need for quotes around deadly weapon.  A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon under the law when it is used to strike someone.  

Quote:Is this "textbook self defense" if a shooter illegally carrying a weapon shoots two more people trying to neutralize or apprehend him?

Absolutely, yes, as long as they didn't initiate the physical confrontation that lead to them being chased.

Quote:Does he get to "fear for his life," continue to generate mayhem, after he has already killed one person?

Absolutely, yes.  Also, by "generate mayhem" you mean run for his life as people attack him?  If not, kindly expand on what he was doing that was "generating mayhem".

Quote:It may well be if R's myriad bad/illegal decisions can be factored out by total focus on R's state of mind at the time of each shooting. The legal implications of acquittal are worth consideration as well.

He made one illegal decision, to carry a gun he was not old enough to possess on his own, a misdemeanor btw.  As for his "bad decisions", I would certainly not have gone to a predictable riot, regardless of which side I was on the issue.  But that's not illegal, nor is it grounds to attack him, nor is it legal proof of ill intent.  It's also a double edged sword for your position as the exact same thing could be said about all three people Rittenhouse shot in self defense.


I do appreciate this post, though.  It's a textbook example of how people can ignore facts and the law when it serves their ideological purpose.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-03-2021, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but that should be done before charges are filed, not after. 



The did indeed, here's the quote from your article;

The prosecutor said that it is not known exactly what words were said, but it is clear that Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot.

Now, I'm reasonably certain that WI state law does not differ this radically from CA state law, but in CA words are not valid provocation to physically chase and then assault and attempt to rob someone.
 


Open carrying in a state that allows open carry is not a "provocation", it's an exercise of your rights within that state.



Yes, Rosenburg chased Kyle down and then attempted to assault and rob him, by the prosecution's own admission.  Literally textbook self defense for Rittenhouse to respond as he did.
 


Not sure how this is relevant at all.  It's rather understandable for him to be in a bit of a shaken state after such an event.



The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement.  A few things, because this statement is just mind boggling in it's absurdity.  One, his back was turned, so he's not going to be able to hear as well, because, you know, our ears point to the front.  Even if he could hear the shot perfectly there's literally zero chance he'd be able to judge that the shot came from 40 yards away, especially when he is concentrating on fleeing a mob intent on attacking him.  Lastly, and I'm guessing you're not aware of this, but firearms, even handguns, are still lethal at forty yards.  I can mag dump a man-sized target at 40 yards and get 15 out of 17 rounds within the 9-10 ring.



I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement.  You've seen the video, you've heard how quickly all four shots were fired.  Rosenbaum was struck in the back as he was falling because of the shots to his front.  This is not the same thing as Rosenbaum being shot in the back initially or him being "downed" when it happened.  Seriously, your position in this thread is just horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way.



By your and the prosecution's own admission Rittenhouse did not initiate a physical confrontation.  He also attempted to flee a physical confrontation and continued to do so.  Also, I'll reiterate, because you keep mentioning this like it's important, Rittenhouse being in possession of the gun illegally has zero, absolutely zero, bearing on the question of self defense.  No one there could possibly know that, and even if they did it would not justify their attacking him.



I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.







You got this part right, except no need for quotes around deadly weapon.  A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon under the law when it is used to strike someone.  



Absolutely, yes, as long as they didn't initiate the physical confrontation that lead to them being chased.



Absolutely, yes.  Also, by "generate mayhem" you mean run for his life as people attack him?  If not, kindly expand on what he was doing that was "generating mayhem".



He made one illegal decision, to carry a gun he was not old enough to possess on his own, a misdemeanor btw.  As for his "bad decisions", I would certainly not have gone to a predictable riot, regardless of which side I was on the issue.  But that's not illegal, nor is it grounds to attack him, nor is it legal proof of ill intent.  It's also a double edged sword for your position as the exact same thing could be said about all three people Rittenhouse shot in self defense.


I do appreciate this post, though.  It's a textbook example of how people can ignore facts and the law when it serves their ideological purpose.

So if I kill someone in public. And civilian bystanders come to stop me. I am allowed to kill them too with no consequences and shouldn’t even be charged with anything and this situation shouldn’t even make it to the court room according to you.

What is proper escalation if you see someone gunned down and the perp fleeing the scene with a rifle in their hands? Do nothing and look the other way?

[jj22]

Say what you want about Kyle, but nothing is going to change unless a black teen does it. Then we will see meaningful discussions on open carry (with no background check, no training from those who can't even buy cigarettes) and how maybe we shouldn't be giving weapons of mass destruction to kids (or even untrained adults - Hello Texas) without demanding some sort of training, license, renewal of license, be of age etc as we do when people who want to drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes.

But I guess we have to patiently wait for a black teenage boy or mass shooter for this to take place. Sad state of affairs we live in.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 05:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So if I kill someone in public. And civilian bystanders come to stop me. I am allowed to kill them too with no consequences and shouldn’t even be charged with anything and this situation shouldn’t even make it to the court room according to you.

You'll need to provide far more details for this to be answered accurately.  Your scenario, as bare bones as it is, lacks several key elements contained within this case.  Did you "kill someone in public" because you were defending your life?  When civilian bystanders "come to stop" you do they strike you in the head and shoulder area with a skateboard while another brandishes a handgun at you?  These are rather pertinent questions.

Quote:What is proper escalation if you see someone gunned down and the perp fleeing the scene with a rifle in their hands? Do nothing and look the other way?

Be what every single law enforcement officer will tell you in such a situation be a good witness (i.e. commit as many details of the incident to memory as possible) and call the police so they can handle it.  Now, if Kyle had continued shooting people at random instead of trying to flee the area and get to safety then you'd have legal grounds to intervene with lethal force.  But Kyle running away from the mob does not constitute an immediate threat to anyone.  As I stated before, it's amazing how much these anti-cop protestors desperately want to be cops (look no further than the CHOP/Chaz for several examples).  

If the second two people had followed this common sense advice neither would have been shot and the only person who would have killed that night would have been the guy who initiated the entire encounter in the first place.

[Dill]

(11-03-2021, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but that should be done before charges are filed, not after. 
The did indeed, here's the quote from your article;
The prosecutor said that it is not known exactly what words were said, but it is clear that Rittenhouse started a confrontation that led Joseph Rosenbaum to begin chasing Rittenhouse across a parking lot.
Now, I'm reasonably certain that WI state law does not differ this radically from CA state law, but in CA words are not valid provocation to physically chase and then assault and attempt to rob someone.
 Open carrying in a state that allows open carry is not a "provocation", it's an exercise of your rights within that state.
Yes, Rosenburg chased Kyle down and then attempted to assault and rob him, by the prosecution's own admission.  Literally textbook self defense for Rittenhouse to respond as he did.
 Not sure how this is relevant at all.  It's rather understandable for him to be in a bit of a shaken state after such an event.
The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement.  A few things, because this statement is just mind boggling in it's absurdity.  One, his back was turned, so he's not going to be able to hear as well, because, you know, our ears point to the front.  Even if he could hear the shot perfectly there's literally zero chance he'd be able to judge that the shot came from 40 yards away, especially when he is concentrating on fleeing a mob intent on attacking him.  Lastly, and I'm guessing you're not aware of this, but firearms, even handguns, are still lethal at forty yards.  I can mag dump a man-sized target at 40 yards and get 15 out of 17 rounds within the 9-10 ring.
I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement.  You've seen the video, you've heard how quickly all four shots were fired.  Rosenbaum was struck in the back as he was falling because of the shots to his front.  This is not the same thing as Rosenbaum being shot in the back initially.  Seriously, your position in this thread is just horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way.
By your and the prosecution's own admission Rittenhouse did not initiate a physical confrontation.  He also attempted to flee a physical confrontation and continued to do so.  Also, I'll reiterate, because you keep mentioning this like it's important, Rittenhouse being in possession of the gun illegally has zero, absolutely zero, bearing on the question of self defense.  No one there could possibly know that, and even if they did it would not justify their attacking him.
I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.
You got this part right, except no need for quotes around deadly weapon.  A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon under the law when it is used to strike someone.  
Absolutely, yes, as long as they didn't initiate the physical confrontation that lead to them being chased.
Absolutely, yes.  Also, by "generate mayhem" you mean run for his life as people attack him?  If not, kindly expand on what he was doing that was "generating mayhem".
He made one illegal decision, to carry a gun he was not old enough to possess on his own, a misdemeanor btw.  As for his "bad decisions", I would certainly not have gone to a predictable riot, regardless of which side I was on the issue.  But that's not illegal, nor is it grounds to attack him, nor is it legal proof of ill intent.  It's also a double edged sword for your position as the exact same thing could be said about all three people Rittenhouse shot in self defense.
I do appreciate this post, though.  It's a textbook example of how people can ignore facts and the law when it serves their ideological purpose.

This seems pretty helter skelter, ad hoc, and desperate, relying too much on adjectives and ad hominem--that's my "feel" statement for today. I'll try and fish out other points to respond to.

Sounds like you are saying that, because our ears point forward, we can't distinguish whether a shot fired 40 yards behind us was fired 40 yards away or right behind us. Even if you can put 17 rounds in the 9-10 ring, I don't agree.   

I agree that handguns are deadly beyond 40 yards. Perhaps you'll agree that people without handguns aren't aren't a handgun threat. 

Also, R was fleeing one man, not a "mob" when he turned and shot the unarmed Rosenbaum.


Read carefully. I did not say that R shot Rosenbaum in the back initially. I said the kill shot followed him falling forward because of shots to his "extremities," according to the prosecutor. Also, Rosenbaum looked to be facing Rittenhouse when initially shot. He can't get shot in the back without some change in the angle of the barrel. 

By "generate mayhem" I mean bring a gun to a riot intending to "run toward danger," argue with protestors, and shoot one when he tries to disarm. You keep referring to this then minor's "right" to open carry during a riot, even apparently during the curfew he was violating, when he did not even have a right to be on the street. 


Certainly the people R shot made "bad decisions," but theirs theirs did not lead to homicide charges.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 06:03 PM)Dill Wrote: This seems pretty helter skelter, ad hoc, and desperate, relying too much on adjectives and ad hominem--that's my "feel" statement for today. I'll try and fish out other points to respond to.

If you saw this point by point dissection of your inaccuracies as described above I don't think I can put much stock in your opinion on this matter.  Also, I'd like you to kindly point out what is an ad hominem in the post you quoted.  I'll wait.

Quote:Sounds like you are saying that, because our ears point forward, we can't distinguish whether a shot fired 40 yards behind us was fired 40 yards away or right behind us. Even if you can put 17 rounds in the 9-10 ring, I don't agree.   

I have friends who know a hell of a lot more about firearms than I do.  I can confidently say that I know light years more about firearms than you.  You are 100%, indisputably, incorrect here.

Quote:I agree that handguns are deadly beyond 40 yards. Perhaps you'll agree that people without handguns aren't aren't a handgun threat. 

Yes, no handgun means no "handgun" threat.  Of course there are myriad deadly threats that don't involve a handgun, such as a person attacking you and attempting to rob you of your own firearm.

Quote:Also, R was fleeing one man, not a "mob" when he turned and shot the unarmed Rosenbaum.

At this point I honestly have to question your eyesight.  The guy you already mentioned, among others, was also chasing him, you know the one who shot a handgun.

Quote:Read carefully. I did not say that R shot Rosenbaum in the back initially. I said the kill shot followed him falling forward because of shots to his "extremities," according to the prosecutor.

I did read carefully, apparently you did not because what you actually said was the following;

Quote:Did he fear for his life when he shot the already downed Rosenbaum in the back?

Note the words "already downed".  That doesn't even imply, it states that Rittenhouse shot him in the back while he was "down".  This is demonstrably false by the admission of the prosecution who noted that the bullet that entered his back did so as he was in the process of falling forward.  You position also notably omits just how rapidly the four shots followed each other.  A rather key piece of fact.

Quote:Also, Rosenbaum looked to be facing Rittenhouse when initially shot. He can't get shot in the back without some change in the angle of the barrel. 

Uhhh, or a change in the angle of his body.  

Quote:By "generate mayhem" I mean bring a gun to a riot intending to "run toward danger," argue with protestors, and shoot one when he tries to disarm. You keep referring to this then minor's "right" to open carry during a riot, even apparently during the curfew he was violating, when he did not even have a right to be on the street. 

Except you used it to describe his actions while running away.  In any event, your position as stated is just silly.  Being out after curfew is not "generating mayhem".  Open carrying in a state in which that is legal is not "generating mayhem".  "Running towards danger" is not "generating mayhem".  Although you actually help his case by stating he "ran to danger".  Running to danger does not give anyone carte blanche to physically attack you, nor does either of your other two "generating mayhem" activities.

Quote:Certainly the people R shot made "bad decisions," but theirs theirs did not lead to homicide charges.

Thankfully for Kyle, as he was the one they were trying to kill.

Your arguments are normally much, much better than this, Dill.  Even when I find them overly verbose they are usually grounded in some fact and logic.  I think this topic is too emotional for you because all of that has gone out the window in your responses in this thread.  I know you'll discount this appraisal, which is fine, but I have to say, you're making this one extremely easy for me.


Lastly, I noticed you ignored the extremely relevant point about the prosecution admitting that Rosenbaum initiated the physical attack after a verbal altercation.  Why is that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Dill, I have a question for you that I didn't want lost in the sauce. You raised the assertion that Rittenhouse was responsible for the verbal altercation with Rosenbaum that led to Rosenbaum chasing and attacking him. Do you think that a verbal altercation is sufficient provocation to physically attack someone? If so, could you provide us with examples of words or statements that would justify physically assaulting someone?


I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-03-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll need to provide far more details for this to be answered accurately.  Your scenario, as bare bones as it is, lacks several key elements contained within this case.  Did you "kill someone in public" because you were defending your life?  When civilian bystanders "come to stop" you do they strike you in the head and shoulder area with a skateboard while another brandishes a handgun at you?  These are rather pertinent questions.

Sounds like good questions to ask in a trial.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-03-2021, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, I have a question for you that I didn't want lost in the sauce.  You raised the assertion that Rittenhouse was responsible for the verbal altercation with Rosenbaum that led to Rosenbaum chasing and attacking him.  Do you think that a verbal altercation is sufficient provocation to physically attack someone?  If so, could you provide us with examples of words or statements that would justify physically assaulting someone?


I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Not Dill, but I'll take a shot in the dark here. 

As I'm told, words without means are not sufficient to start any sort of physical altercation. HOWEVER, one would think (and this is conjecture, not what I believe happened or anything; simply playing Devil's advocate) that words with means would be sufficient. I.e: an openly armed individual threatening my life would definitely warrant a response from me. May not hold up in a court of law without sufficient evidence (such as here, though they may have said evidence and it hasn't been made public), but I feel like it'd be justified.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 06:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sounds like good questions to ask in a trial.

Oh, absolutely.  An even better time to ask them, as I previously stated, is before you even file charges.  It's very much worth remembering that charges should not be filed by the DA unless they believe they can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've said this before but if you put this concept in percentage terms it would be around 90-95% likely the person committed the alleged offense.  A trial exists to provide evidence and argument to either support or deny this standard of proof.  If you already have reams of evidence that leans heavily toward self defense then filing charges would not be appropriate, unless your goal is something other than actually proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you honestly say, given the video evidence available about this case (and I've said this before, but it's very uncommon to have so many comprehensive pieces of video evidence in such a case) that you could state that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense with 90-95% certainty?  Again, I'm open to a different interpretation if previously unseen evidence is brought to life, but seeing as how discovery is a thing the prosecution would have already had to present that evidence in court.  I haven't heard of it, have you?  The prosecutor certainly didn't reference any such evidence in their opening statement.

Look, I get why the incident leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.  I get why we constantly hear legally irrelevant things like "he shouldn't have been there".  But when you look at this case through a dispassionate legal lens there's literally only one logical conclusion.  I'll close with this, my uncle is a judge, was a prosecutor for many years and worked with a DA task force to prosecute cartel smuggles.  He's also gay and hardly a Republican.  He flat out stated that the fact that charges were filed in this case with the evidence available is a flat out disgrace and abuse of the office.  This man is razor sharp and has decades of experience.  If I hadn't already been of the same opinion his position would absolutely make me pause and reexamine the evidence.  It's honestly that cut and dry.