Kyle Rittenhouse / 2021 gun thread

Starker on 22/11/2021 at 09:10

As if you really needed any more examples how morally bankrupt the Republican party in the US is, they have now moved from the Southern strategy even further back to, "Are you now or have you ever been..."

(https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461372365821075458)

As someone who grew up under a communist regime, this is a fucking disgrace.

driver on 22/11/2021 at 10:23

Quote Posted by SD

I mean, he's the legal expert, and you're not. Ambiguous laws should always - always - favour a defendant.

But yes, the attempt to portray a Democrat judge as some kind of far right white supremacist has certainly been one of the saddest/funniest aspects of this case.

I don't know what world you live in, but retrials and mistrals happen all the time. Judges can make bad decisions, they're not infallible. Look at what happened with OJ Simpson.

I never said the judge was far right or a white supremacist, don't put words in my mouth.

Draxil on 22/11/2021 at 13:22

Quote Posted by Starker

We are not holding a trial here, but expressing our opinions about current events. Completely fair game to talk about the shooter's character and prior actions. And people haven't been exactly shy about trying to insinuate how the victims "had it coming" either. But if you really think that the shooter has received unfair treatment by the justice system and that the shooter wouldn't have had a different treatment by the justice system and law enforcement, if he had been black, don't you think you're the one who's approaching this from an irrational and tribal point of view?

Also, the Kenosha shooter didn't just flee, but started shooting people. I have been chased by people explicitly and unambiguosly intending me harm, a group of skinheads who really meant business. You know what I didn't do? Murder them. There is such a thing as proportionality in self-defence. If someone punches you on the street, you have every right to defend yourself, even strike back, but if you stab them with a knife or hit them with a baseball bat, that's no longer self-defence. You can't use force that can cause grievous harm to remove a minor threat. And the circumstances, like whether you rile someone up on purpose, play into it as well.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about the justice system, I'm talking about you, the members of this forum, and the media writ large; if this incident had been a black man shooting Trump supporters during a riot in self defense, it would have been a non-issue in the media and here. But it wasn't, and it has been grossly misrepresented to support a narrative. I think the shooter was treated fairly by the justice system and have no issue with the decision, and I wouldn't have an issue with the decision if the race and political affiliation of shooter and the assailants was changed.

Your second paragraph is fantasy. I don't think character makes a difference in this case, and haven't mentioned character at all. But by all means let's do: the first man shot was a convicted pedophile who molested 5 minor boys. He was mentally ill, had threatened to kill Rittenhouse that night, and was cavorting with an armed man who was engaged in arson. He didn't attack a group, he chose to attack an individual who was a minor, presumably because he thought he would come out on top in the confrontation. Long rifles are much less useful at close range, and if he had successfully closed the distance between himself an Rittenhouse he could have reasonably assumed his greater size, experience, and strength would have led to him being able to get the rifle away to do...what? Carry out his threat to kill Rittenhouse if he got him alone? The second man shot chased an armed man who was trying to get away, and hit him while on the ground with a skateboard and then attempted to seize the rifle. Why? If you were on the ground after being chased by the mob, would you assume anything other than bad intentions? Your premise of proportional self defense doesn't apply to individuals, and especially to individuals who have already taken reasonable measures to get out of a violent situation. It applies to trained law enforcement officers, not to panicked 17 year olds fleeing a mob. The third man shot was illegally carrying a concealed weapon and was shot when he pointed it Rittenhouse. Maybe he didn't intend to shoot Rittenhouse, like he testified. Maybe he was too slow. Rittenhouse fired one shot each at the second and third attacker and disengaged when the threat was gone. He repeatedly acted proportionally; he didn't randomly fire into the mob chasing him, he shot at men who physically attacked him, and ceased firing when the threat was neutralized. In short, everything he did that night from the moment Rosenbaum attacked him was proprortional and consistent with self-defense, and inconsistent with charges of first degree homicide.

lowenz on 22/11/2021 at 16:03

LOL, Ritterhouse could have been a serial killer for anybody there (and in facts now he got 2 kills in a row, 3 missed by chance).

Just stop saying "pedophile" or "mentally ill" 'cause of course Ritterhouse didn't know that so what's the point? Please, really, stop disrespecting your intelligence just to oppose "libtards" and "media narrative" with some fancy words (YOUR narrative). It's a Jordan Peterson strategy and "stance guru" like that. Elegant bullshit.

Ritterhouse is a stupid man-child playing vigilante and you're defending him, THAT'S the problem.
Not even a "pedophile death", the problem is the defence of this kind of "patriotic" self-righteousness - hero complex of mean and stupid (sub)human beings in reality.

lowenz on 22/11/2021 at 16:24

This is a "pedophile" ?

(https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057571558/what-we-know-3-men-kyle-rittenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz)

The paper reported that Rosenbaum said he was molested by a stepfather and had spent most of his adult life in prison starting at age 18 for sexual conduct with five preteen boys.

His mother was sent to prison when he was 13 and Rosenbaum began using heroin and methamphetamine at a group home where he was sent, the Post reported.

It's really hard to call a troubled 18yo (a teen by american standard) "pedophile" for having "sex" (?) with preteens. A pedophile is an adult (non-teen) having sex with *CHILDS* (non-preteen)
But if you want play with words, I'll call Ritterhouse an "absolved serial killer" ;)

Draxil on 22/11/2021 at 17:53

Quote Posted by lowenz

I'm pretty sure that your batty definition of what does and doesn't constitute "pedophilia" didn't matter to the 9 year old that he anally raped at the age of 18. Stop going out of your way to defend such a scumbag. He lived 18 years longer than he should have.

Starker on 22/11/2021 at 18:04

Quote Posted by Draxil

As I said, we are not in a courtroom here and I'm not a judge who is required to stay impartial. I'm perfectly justified in pointing out that the shooter is a scumbag and condemn his actions, just like I condemn the actions of the baseball game shooter and the actions of the man who threw molotov cocktails at ICE buses and tried to commit suicide by cop. It's just that extremist left-wing violence of that kind is relatively rare. It's much more common for a right-wing person to shoot up a black church or murder someone from India for looking "Middle-Eastern". Whether you like it or not, hate-crimes and terrorism does have a particular political bent in the US.

Rather, isn't your insistence that the shooter did nothing wrong there that's biased? If you think that shooting an unarmed man who hasn't even touched you once is proportionate, I'd say you're the one engaging in fantasy. Proportionality is a key aspect of self-defence. It's not just for trained law enforcement officers, it's also for untrained law enforcement officers (i.e. US law enforcement officers) and regular everyday people. If someone threatens you, you don't have the right to kill them in "self-defence". It might be a mitigating circumstance, but you're still using excessive force. Also, you seem to think that the situation was completely one-sided, for some reason. Wonder why that is? If you point your gun at people, that's provocation and a threat in and of itself, wouldn't you agree?

catbarf on 22/11/2021 at 18:14

Quote Posted by Jason Moyer

It's also great because it means the next time there's an alt-retard rally, I can go there with a 'Trump Fucks Small Boys" t-shirt and an AR-16, and if anyone gives me shit I can shoot them and claim that I felt threatened. As long as I say "I wish none of this had happened" afterwards.

Quote Posted by Tocky

So if someone goes to a Trump rally with a rifle and gets the Trumpers to chase them they can turn around and shoot them and it's self defense? Or do they have to show records of them being a child rapist before they start to chase?

If you show up to a protest- armed or not- and someone attacks you because they are offended by your shirt, you have a right to self-defense. Most states only allow lethal force only be used in self-defense to avoid death or serious harm, and most require that you exhaust all reasonable alternatives first, which means trying to escape the situation. If someone throws a punch and you shoot them dead, you'll go to prison. If someone throws a punch, you run for two blocks, and they're still trying to chase you with a mob of their friends while making death threats, and then you shoot them dead, then that would probably be considered self-defense.

If you instigate a confrontation with violence or credible threat of violence, you will be considered the aggressor and that will normally invalidate any self-defense claim in whatever happens. However, if you then make a genuine effort at de-escalation- like running away- then you will no longer be committing an act of aggression. If someone takes a swing at you and then turns to leave, baseball bat still in hand, you don't get to shoot them in the back and call it self-defense as they flee; that'll be murder. If you point a gun at someone and then turn to run, they're not legally justified in chasing you down and hurting you either. Your right to use force in self-defense ends the instant someone is no longer posing a direct threat. If you try to inflict harm on someone who is no longer trying to harm you, you are the aggressor.

So yes, if you exercise your 1st Amendment rights and rile up a crowd of Trump supporters to the point where they attempt to inflict violence on you, but then you make a genuine effort to leave the scene and run as far as you can, and they're still riled up and after you, and you credibly believe the mob intends to seriously hurt or kill you, then you can use lethal force in self-defense. Thanks to your provocation and degree of premeditation you may still wind up on criminal charges, but if the DA pushes for first-degree homicide you'll almost certainly wind up 'not guilty'. And then there's the possibility of a civil suit, which you'll almost certainly lose.

None of this is new or unexpected. This is generally how it's always worked, dating all the way back to English common law. If you guys want to learn instead of concocting whataboutisms, there are plenty of online resources on self-defense law.

I find it ridiculous that a minor can legally open-carry a rifle at a protest, but the evidence suggests Rittenhouse was carrying legally, attempted to retreat from confrontation, didn't fire until credibly threatened, and didn't shoot anyone who wasn't a threat. Thanks to the media shitshow and outright false reporting I'm not at all surprised that people have the takeaway that this is open season on protestors, but that's a gross misrepresentation of the details of the case.

Edit:

Quote Posted by Starker

If you think that shooting an unarmed man who hasn't even touched you once is proportionate, I'd say you're the one engaging in fantasy. Proportionality is a key aspect of self-defence.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about- the prosecution's witnesses said that Rosenbaum and a group of protesters were following Rittenhouse as he tried to evade them, and Rittenhouse only shot after Rosenbaum caught up with him and started to struggle for control of his rifle. However you stand on that, that's not 'shooting an unarmed man who hasn't even touched you once'. If the witnesses had actually testified to that effect it probably would have made for a different outcome.

Starker on 22/11/2021 at 18:39

Quote Posted by catbarf

If I remember correctly, he testified that the man lunged towards his gun, which warrants maybe a warning, but not shooting someone multiple times. I haven't seen any witnesses talk about wrestling or anything of the like. Of course, if that's true, and the victim indeed engaged the shooter physically and the gun was discharged during the struggle, that would be a completely different scenario.

catbarf on 22/11/2021 at 19:13

Quote Posted by Starker

A (https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-kenosha-3b74864f491347cfdd09cfc22ffdf557) witness stated Rosenbaum was lunging for the rifle when he was shot, after Rittenhouse had already tried to deter him, and the forensics supported that account. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who is being pursued by a group and is then actively being attacked to give an extra last chance in that final split second before physical contact- you're not required to wait until an aggressor is actually touching you to respond to a threat. It's not like he started shooting because someone was looking at him funny.

At best Rosenbaum was a vigilante attempting to disarm someone who pointed a gun at him and then walked away. At worst he was an unstable dude who was trying to hurt or kill Rittenhouse. There's enough ambiguity there for a charge of first degree murder to fail. A lesser charge without requiring premeditation might have stuck.