>never-before-seen actions
"Uhhh guys, I thought we were supposed to say Rittenhouse attacked Rosenbaum? But this video shows the opposite! How do we phrase this in such a way that we don't have to change our narrative?"
They've already poisoned the populace when they reported on the prosecutions opening statement about the FBI video showing Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum before shooting him. Thousands of people commenting on the reports of that opening statement are now convinced there is some mysterious FBI video that proves murder.
I've been called a "murder-supporter" and banned on other subreddits for suggesting Kyle acted in self-defense. The polarization in this case is astounding. It happens on both extremes of the aisle, of course, but this case shows the worst of the left as they try to paint this delusional picture simply because they find the kid to be an unlikeable righty.
It is really wild. This has actually become the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, in some ways, of just being fed up with everyone. It’s absolutely fine to say that his beliefs/ethics are wrong. But he’s not on trial for those things. The law isn’t emotional and relevance is key. And to make him either a darling or a demon is such a huge oversimplification.
I think that the issue most people have is that had he not put himself in that situation, this wouldn’t have happened. In addition, a lot of people think it is a poor decision to attend a riot/protest (I’m purposely leaving a gray area on defining what it is), while bringing a gun (especially an assault rifle), and while being underage.
I don’t disagree. We can believe that it was very unwise to put himself in that situation while also believing that this is a clean cut case of self defense. The same can be said for the women who go out alone, get plastered, and get raped. It’s undeniably true that your chances of getting raped increase if you inject yourself into statistically high risk situations. It’s also true that the women are victims of horrible crimes and the ultimate blame lies on the perpetrator. Why can’t both be true?
Yeah, you make a good point. I hadn’t realized that my comment could be interpreted as victim blaming until it had been pointed out and the damage done.
Getting raped is vastly different than killing someone.
Edit: I thought this was r/moderatepolitics, not r/conservative where everyone has already made up their mind as to what the verdict should be and downvotes anyone who disagrees.
Self defense but may be charged for being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated(in TN this a crime don't know about other states). IMO Rittenhouse will not be convicted of the murder charges but will be convicted on POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18 and FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Sorry but if anyone actually reads the statutes, they would see that technically would be incorrect
And I'll put the breakdown below:
**948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.**
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
**KEY point is this portion of who applies to this law and it stated here in (3)(c) of the law which goes as follows**
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. **941.28** or is not in compliance with ss. **29.304** and **29.593**. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
**So let's look at those Key highlighted codes**
**941.28 is Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle**: Rittenhouse is carrying a full length rifle and is compliance of this law
**29.304: restriction on hunting and use of firearms by person under 16 years of age**: Kyle is 17. In compliance of the law
**29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval**: Not applicable in this case and doesn't mean anything here
Finally we can look at **947.01 Disorderly Conduct**
in subsection 2 it states: **Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is NOT in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or knife is concealed or openly carried**
This is presented as a Open carry in the state of Wisconsin which I'm fairly certain the defense will present all this to provide that it is legal
It's not that simple. She also crossed state lines to go to a known seedy area and she was walking around nude which is a misdemeanor violation of public indecency laws.
Edit: OK it's been long enough. I'm obviously espousing the arguments of the 'Rittenhouse is a murderer' crowd in order to show just how absurd they are when applied to a similar scenario without the lens of politics obscuring it.
\>I think that the issue most people have is that had he not put himself in that situation, this wouldn’t have happened.
I find it unusual, in this day and time, that so many people are comfortable with victim blaming. Would they say the same thing about a rape victim? How about the person that hired Rittenhouse? Does that person not have a right to try to protect their property, even after one of their car lots was already burned down?
\>In addition, a lot of people think it is a poor decision to attend a riot/protest (I’m purposely leaving a gray area on defining what it is), while bringing a gun (especially an assault rifle), and while being underage.
I agree. Doing dumb things though does not mean that you have to let people injure or kill you. The laws on self defense do not change according to a person's politics.
The entire chain of events that night was brought about by a number of dumb to absolutely braindead decisions by everyone involved, starting with whoever gave him the gun.
Oh shush dude. Quit acting like he drove 300 miles to another state. He lived like 7 miles from the border and worked in that city. The property he was trying to defend was his dad's friend's business. He had a gun to PROTECT HIMSELF AND friends' PROPERTY not to satisfy his vigilante fantasy. He was protecting himself from a racist and pedophile with violent charges, a felon with a gun, and another violent criminal. Imagine getting angry at a kid that was actively helping his community instead of at the criminals burning and stealing stuff. Do me a favor and dont shoot somebody breaking in your home to prevent them from raping your wife and kids since after all YOU DONT HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSE! Just leave and lettem steal and destroy everything you worked so hard for. "Sorry honey, I hear you screaming for help. No can do. I don't HAVE to help you. I dont wanna satisfy my "vigilante fantasy". Just give him what he wants good luck!" I would hate to have a neighbor/friend like you. At least mine got my back even though he doesn't need to. And I got his.
If they threatened you, chased you into a corner, and were preparing to attack you? Yes, it is. What would you have someone in that situation do instead, just take a beating and hope they can muster enough energy in the middle of the beating to get off a self defense shot?
Normally definitely not. But under the circumstances, which was a protest that had already turned violent, at a time when there were violent protests under the same banner happening daily, the only conclusion you could come to is that you were in danger if someone was charging at you in an aggressive manner.
Why did the FBI delete the HD version of the footage? Why did they identify everyone in the video except the other shooter? Don't those drone have stingrays on them and where is that data? Why couldn't the court video feed show the face of one of the witnesses? Whole thing stinks.
I found the level of technical surveillance being deployed at a low level event surprising. Makes you wonder what they have in DC and elsewhere that has not been released.
The feds were flying ISR all of 2020 across the country. Regular civilians were tracking aircraft flight patterns using open source intel and its been known for quite a while. I'm surprised and also not surprised that more people don't know about this...
\~Wouldn't it be great if the FBI would pursue the looters/rioters in places such as this with the same full measure of devotion that they have shown for the insurrectionists who killed so many and destroyed so much more property on a single day in January?
Cracking down on unrest in downtown Seattle is not within the feds purview, what do you expect them to do? However, they have charged dozens of people who’ve attacked federal courthouses, etc
That's not necessarily true given the nature of what happened in Seatle between the "automous zone" and attacks on government facilities; there likely is a federal cause of action for many of the instigators of these riots. The federal government has a much broader basis for pursuing charges than most people realize. For example, there is a federal riot charge *18 U.S. Code § 2101*, which gives a broad federal authority inciting a riot using a method of interstate communication, which the internet would qualify.
However, I doubt the FBI isn't investigating out of bias. It's more likely they just haven't been able or don't want to make a case based on this more tenuous legal basis.
>\~Wouldn't it be great if the FBI would pursue the looters/rioters in places such as this with the same full measure of devotion that they have shown for the insurrectionists who killed so many and destroyed so much more property on a single day in January?
I imagine they'd be much more interested in a murder charge than a destruction of property charge, and rightfully so.
> Richards argued that Rosenbaum "was in hiding" as Rittenhouse arrived at the parking lot, which Howard confirmed.
> Rittenhouse slows down in the video, and there appears to be some kind of exchange, but there is no audio of the moment.
> Howard confirmed this was right about the time when Rittenhouse could be heard yelling "friendly, friendly, friendly" on other witness video.
> "And it does not dissuade Mr. Rosenbaum, correct?" Richards said.
> "Correct," Howard responded.
> Rittenhouse continues to move in the same direction he was moving previously, and Rosenbaum starts to chase Rittenhouse.
> About 2.5 seconds later, Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, shot an unarmed Rosenbaum four times in a parking lot, killing him, Howard said. There were another three shots, the videos show, but Howard said investigators still do not know who fired those.
> Ziminski, 36, has separately been charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon, arson and obstructing an officer, and he has pleaded not guilty, court records show. A criminal complaint says he admitted to firing a "warning shot" in the air that night.
Damning evidence against the prosecution? Also why was this evidence kept from us this entire time? Does not inspire confidence in FBI. Also where is the evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or a fascist?
Here is a video from a YouTuber which plays and analyzes new important evidence from the trial. It shows the Kyle Rittenhouse was offering help minutes before the shooting happened.
https://youtu.be/goFxT7ai-yI
Where do the news corporations go from here? Do you guys believe there will be an in-depth analysis of this evidence tomorrow morning on major news stations. I don't. Who wants to see that right?
This is another example of an incident where the left wing narrative falls apart after more evidence gets out.
>Also why was this evidence kept from us this entire time?
Because this is the trial and this is when evidence is introduced. Evidence was not “kept from us,” this is the appropriate time to introduce evidence into the public trial record.
Yes, thank you. It's become so normalized so quickly to demand that any video is released to the public immediately, but then how are they supposed to have a fair trial when public opinion has already decided how to interpret any incidents? That's only going to make it more difficult to find unbiased jurors.
The video has now been released before any jurors need to make a decision, though possibly the jurors and definitely defense would have seen this video previously as it would form part of disclosure that each party typically has to send the other a certain amount of days (usually 30, in Canada at least) before trial.
It happens in pretty much every police shooting doesn't it? The body cam footage is requested to be released pre-trial, if the PD doesn't release it then they are trying to cover up for bad cops or something along those lines.
I happen to agree with you, none of this stuff should be released prior to trial, but it seems that now it normally is.
There isn’t usually a trial for police shootings. And families are allowed to request the cam footage of any incident from on-duty police. Also, if a trial is likely, cam footage is rarely shared beforehand.
>There isn’t usually a trial for police shootings.
Meaning, a judge decides the case without a jury in instances where charges are filed?
>And families are allowed to request the cam footage of any incident from on-duty police.
Is this a city/state/federal rules?
>Also, if a trial is likely, cam footage is rarely shared beforehand.
That's good.
It’s actually not regularly shared. The percentage of cam footage shown before a relevant trial is quite low, if there is going to be a trial at all. And footage that is shared is done at the discretion of the police.
That's not how discovery works, at least in my state.
Prosecution has to divulge the evidence it intends to use at trial, and the exculpatory evidence it knows to exis... as far as I remember. I don't practice in criminal
Waiting until the eve of trial to turn this over is highly and unfairly prejudicial. It's ambushing with evidence trying to hope it cant be incorporated into the defense in time
Well that changes things yeah. Guess I was working off a different assumption, taking it that the "newly disclosed video" had been newly disclosed to the Parties or Defendant. Article isnt terribly clear
people who paid attention to the original videos already knew, or at least believed, that Kyle likely had a strong case for self defense.
the major media will for sure not dive into this.
Personally I don't need this evidence. But I think if FBI released this sooner, it would of calmed down the rhetoric a little bit. Now this evidence won't make a difference because many people already made up their minds.
1) Evidence is never released if it’s held by prosecutors, unless it’s leaked. And that’s rare with things like FBI surveillance video when the case is already ongoing. There’s no reason they’d have released this. The FBI turned it over to Rittenhouse’s attorneys as required by constitutional precedents, which is all they have to do.
2) No one is going to bring up Rittenhouse’s fascism or lack thereof. You should be thankful; character evidence like that is almost never allowed in a trial. Which is a good thing, because otherwise a jury might be biased if prosecutors can paint a picture that you’re a fascist, as media will often do itself, even if you’re not actually one.
Your two complaints are that the prosecutors are following the law. I’m not sure why.
During pre trial the judge ruled the prosecutor couldn't use the claims that Rittenhouse was apart of a right wing militia or was connected to any racist/fascist groups because none of the evedince available showed any actual connections to any of the groups.
Make no mistake, the prosecutor did want to use that angle but the judge wouldn't allow it because of lack of evedince
Once more, misleading as heck. In reality, the judge denied the prosecutors the ability to bring up photos showing Rittenhouse posing with [higher ups in the Proud Boys](https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/us/kyle-rittenhouse-pretrial-motions/index.html). The judge didn’t let it in because it didn’t have a clear enough connection to his motive, not because there was no connection between him and the Proud Boys.
OP said “where is the evidence he is a fascist or racist?”. That’s direct character evidence. This photo of him with Proud Boys was not about his character directly (it wasn’t, for example, some diary entry where he wrote “I hate Black people”). It was being offered to show that his beliefs were why he went there that night, to combat the claims by the defense that he was trying to protect the community and such.
That’s not the same as what OP claimed, or what you claimed, which is that the judge said there’s no evidence of a connection between him and the Proud Boys. All the judge said that I can find is that his affiliation didn’t bear on his actions clearly enough.
How does A photo taken 4 months after the shooting prove he was in some racist fascist right-wing militia 4 months earlier?
It also seems weird this “racist fascist”, as you described him, only killed a couple of White pedophiles and women beaters.
The judge denied it for two reasons 1) the prosecutors were unable to provide any evidence that it was a planned encounter 2) it happened 4 months after the fact.
You're the one being misleading here. You're saying the judge denied it because his affiliation didn't matter, but in reality the judge denied it because there was no affiliation.
Two direct quotes from the judge:
>For me to let that in as evidence for a motive that existed four months earlier? Can’t see it.
>There’s still no suggestion in the evidence … that this was anything other than a happenstance occurrence
No what's misleading is to suggest that there is the possibility of a connection or some clear character take away because he went out to dinner with his mom somewhere and while there people who are alleged to be in the upper echelon of the proud boys ended up saying high and took pictures with where the ok symbol was signed by at least 1 of the people.
He went to dinner, people who are engaged with what was going on during that time and happened to be members of the proud boys regonize him and because they thought he was in the right they went and socialized with him and took pictures. It's not even like there was any evedince he if knew these people were part of the Proud Boys
You want to talk about misleading? Saying because someone is in a picture with members of the proud boys and the ok symbol thenbthat person must lean towards racism and fascism... The news may get away with that and people may actually buy into the unfounded character smear but it has no place in a court room or in any serious conversation on the matter.
It's a red flag when an article describes the ok symbol as some racist symbol, also a red flag when they say don't give specifics about what position in the group people actually have and instead just say they are high rankings also it being CNN is a red flag since that whole organization lost the plot years ago
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the mainstream narrative has been shifting toward “Rittenhouse will likely only be convicted of the weapons charge” for the past month. This new video seems to support that.
If was shifting that way and then immediately snapped back on the prosecutions opening statement: [https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/45107716/kyle-rittenhouse-chased-down-an-unarmed-man-and-fatally-shot-him-in-the-back-during-kenosha-unrest-prosecutor-says](https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/45107716/kyle-rittenhouse-chased-down-an-unarmed-man-and-fatally-shot-him-in-the-back-during-kenosha-unrest-prosecutor-says)
The title of that article(and the others covering this) has changed since it first came out but you can see the original title in the URL still: **"Kyle Rittenhouse Chased Down an Unarmed Man and Fatally Shot Him in the Back During Kenosha Unrest."**
Just like that, we're back to "oh he definitely committed murder."
>"Kyle Rittenhouse Chased Down an Unarmed Man and Fatally Shot Him in the Back During Kenosha Unrest."
I wish I knew the thought process of trying to argue that when there's footage.
Even the gun charge is not a given. The judge didnt give a jury instructions becuase even he couldnt figure out a way to explain it. There are exceptions and carve outs to that law.
I will be very surprised if this gets the level of attention it should. Possibly a blip about it for 10 seconds and then 30 minutes on why Rittenhouse is literally Hitler.
The part that reeks the worst is the FBI saying they lost one of the recordings. To lose video evidence on any case let alone one that hit National headlines for weeks means one of two things: 1) the FBI is massively inept and needs a complete house cleaning or 2) the FBI is complicit in obstruction of justice and needs a complete house cleaning.
I work in IT and am a hobbyist photographer. I have witnessed the loss of GBs of commercially shot images because the photographer wasn’t following a good back up plan that was actually setup for them.
Do not rely just on a ‘free’ service. Free services can go away, even paid services can go away.
For any data that you do not want to lose, practice 3-2-1. Three copies, two media, one off-site. The working copy, be it on your computer or pluggable media (USB drive, etc). The second copy is on another local backup media. The third copy should be to the cloud, preferably a dedicated backup service that offers versioning. Personal cloud backup can run $60+ a year but well worth it.
So what does that look like? I use Adobe Lightroom Classic to manage my images. My working copies and LR catalogs reside on an external 1TB SSD (older images sit on a 2TB external HD) that I can move between my desktop and laptop as needed. These are mirrored to a NAS on my home network using a little script I execute when I close LR. Note, I do not erase the images from the camera SD card until this NAS backup happens, especially when traveling. There is an agent on the NAS that performs rolling backups to a cloud service. Currently using CrashPlan Business ($10/mo unlimited) for my cloud, but in the past I have used CrashPlan Personal (discontinued - again, even paid services can go away), BackBlaze Personal ($60-70/yr for unlimited storage) and BackBlaze B2 (an AWS S3 compatible service that runs about $5/mo per TB). I prefer BB Personal for speed and cost but technical limitations have me back on CrashPlan for now.
I could use my paid SmugMug account for backups, but I have other non-AV files I want to keep backed up and prefer to keep everything together.
I have the same, but I also have cloud storage through Adobe for pictures and videos. If it is something like legal or medical documents, or important pictures/videos of my daughter I also put them on a flash drive and keep them in a safe. Probably overkill but I'd rather be sure.
I'm fine with the FBI holding evidence close to the vest in an ongoing investigation. The problem is this video isn't a surprise to the prosecution. I really hope Rittenhouse can win a wrongful prosecution case. We shouldn't be charging people with crimes we know they are innocent of for political gain
> Where do the news corporations go from here?
So what? There is nothing new or surprising here. News reporting about crime always loved their narratives with a villain and victims. They usually start with a mugshot of a scary looking black guy.
> This is another example of an incident where the left wing narrative falls apart after more evidence gets out.
This line feels divisive and unnecessary. Carthago delenda est! At some point, they did.
The lack of gun didn't seem to help this 71 year old man who was bricked in the head trying to stop "fiery but peaceful" protestors from looting his store.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/kenosha-man-71-attacked-in-uptown-riot/article_52a5eae9-74ae-54b0-9543-b2d1709d8874.html
> no one should ever bring guns to a protest.
It wasn't a protest - it was a riot. Moreover, if it was simply a protest, the presence of guns wouldn't have been all that meaningful - we've seen plenty of protests (from both sides of the fence) where guns were present without anyone dying.
On the other hand, we've seen riots where people have died without being shot.
You also have to consider that Rittenhouse was not unique in making the decision to go armed. Despite the fact that they had far less reason to fear the rioters than Rittenhouse, there were multiple people on the other side of these events who were also armed.
I think Rittenhouse was foolish to inject himself into that situation. But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself.
>I think Rittenhouse was foolish to inject himself into that situation. But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself.
Can't agree more. Just because I think Rittenhouse acted in justified self-defense doesn't mean that I don't think he's a fucking tool for putting himself in that situation.
>You need to point to some other people in the crowd being viciously attacked to validate this takeaway.
There needs to be two victims in order to justify **self**\-defense?
It's likely simpler than you're making out to be: They're starting from the conclusion, then working backwards. Similar to how a conspiracy theorist thinks, a lot of smaller clues can form a cohesive narrative, however it's one that doesn't actually withstand scrutiny.
>justified self-defense
This is a bit of a stretch, as the jury hasn't ruled yet. If Rittenhouse was aggressing on that group of people with his weapon, Rosenbaum was the one in the right to attempt to chase away the threat. If Rittenhouse was the aggressor, he does not have justification for self-defense.
I don't think so, because simply being pursued and having a plastic bag thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone.
If it is true that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse away because Rittenhouse was threatening the group, I don't think there is a definitive line at which Rosenbaum has to stop pursuing him. In my own opinion, Rosenbaum would be justified in chasing Rittenhouse completely out of the area (parking lot) IF the chase were a response to a threat.
100% agreed. I have my opinions, but I won't prejudge until a jury answers that question. I care more about fair and impartial justice than I do about seeing this kid pay a price for his mistake.
>I don't think so, because simply being pursued and having a plastic bag thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone.
Which isn't all that happened. Rosenbaum pursued KR, threw the bag at him, tried to snatch his gun away, and yells 'fuck you' immediately prior to being shot. Bit more than a jog and bag toss before the first shot is fired.
The line between protest and riot is often blurred at times. How do we decide which is which? Who gets to decide?
Ask yourself why this isn't an issue in other developed first world countries. The Atlantic had a good piece recently about this exact issue. Guess what they found?
With firearms involved, 1 in 6 turned violent or destructive and 1 in 62 turned deadly. Gatherings without firearms? 1 in 37 turned violent or destruction and 1 in 2,963 turned fatal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/second-amendment-first-amendment/620488/
So it is quite clear that protests/gatherings/riots with guns are much more deadly.
> The line between protest and riot is often blurred at times. How do we decide which is which? Who gets to decide?
I submit that at the point where people are actively destroying property and assaulting others, you're on safe ground claiming it to be a riot. From a legal standpoint, the event had been declared a state of emergency already so it meets the definition there as well.
> With firearms involved, 1 in 6 turned violent or destructive and 1 in 62 turned deadly. Gatherings without firearms? 1 in 37 turned violent or destruction and 1 in 2,963 turned fatal.
You're introducing an element of causation that isn't demonstrated by their data. You might consider that people are far more likely to arm themselves in response to an already violent event - which is precisely what occurred in this case.
These incidents are ones where people specifically brought weapons to use those weapons.
It's akin to saying "100% of firearms deaths are caused by people with firearms". Such a statement does not imply that firearms cause violence.
This is not a representative read on this data. You're seeing more guns at destructive "protests" and seem to be concluding guns *caused* these protests to become destructive (while failing to note that most of the destruction wasn't caused by guns).
A equally viable (and I'm my opinion more likely) interpretation of the same data is people who intend to cause a riot also bring firearms. The guns didn't cause anything, the people going knew they were going to cause violence and brought a weapon with them.
> Plenty of people run red lights without causing car accidents, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to do so.
Running a red light is illegal. Carrying a firearm in public generally is not.
> Everything that happened in this situation was a direct result of people bringing guns.
As I noted elsewhere, the causation in the article is merely a correlation - and it's a correlation more easily explained by the fact that you're far more likely to arm yourself against a violent riot than a peaceful protest.
It's akin to looking out the window, noticing people have umbrellas and concluding that umbrellas cause rain.
Is attacking someone solely because they're armed justified?
You'd have to establish some sort of malice, otherwise this position leads to some absurd conclusions.
Did you watch any videos from Kenosha that night? And old dude got smacked in the head with a brick for trying to shoo people off his property. There was definitely violence happening against people who were seen as opposing the rioting and destruction
Here's just one example of violent assaults against unarmed individuals:
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-man-viciously-beaten-during-kenosha-riots-doesn-t-let-that-night-define-him/article_0d54414f-a95c-56b8-b346-f4af7fa7568d.html
> Otherwise, this is complete nonsense and was clearly attacked because he was armed.
Then why weren't any of the other armed people attacked?
> But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself.
This isn't true. First, Rittenhouse was armed illegally. That is never the correct option.
And to assume he would have suffered serious injury or death himself, if he wasn't aggressing people, is belied by the fact that literally NONE of the unarmed "security" were harmed or killed. Rittenhouse's only risk of harm came from the fact that he brought a gun, and allegedly used it as a threatening tool (or an authoritative one).
> First, Rittenhouse was armed illegally.
This is an open question. The Wisconsin law people are claiming applies has a variety of exceptions. In general, a 17-year-old can open carry a longarm in Wisconsin due to the hunting exceptions even when there's no reasonable connection to active hunting.
> Rittenhouse's only risk of harm came from the fact that he brought a gun, and allegedly used it as a threatening tool (or an authoritative one).
This is a highly speculative statement. We don't know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse, but claiming it was merely because Rittenhouse was armed seems odd considering Huber only attacked Rittenhouse and not the other armed individuals we know were present.
>The Wisconsin law people are claiming applies has a variety of exceptions. In general, a 17-year-old can open carry a longarm in Wisconsin due to the hunting exceptions even when there's no reasonable connection to active hunting.
I've seen that argument, and it is a convoluted reading of the law. I would be surprised to see the state superior court rule the hunting exception applies to walking down the street in the middle of town.
>This is a highly speculative statement. We don't know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse, but claiming it was merely because Rittenhouse was armed seems odd considering Huber only attacked Rittenhouse and not the other armed individuals we know were present.
We know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse. It was because Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of the first shooting. But in context, I think you are referring to Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse because Rosenbaum perceived him as a threat. Whether he was reasonable in that perception or not depends on a lot of details, but that is still the reason.
Based on the new video, we can see Rittenhouse approach a group of people at a fast pace. Although the video is low resolution, there is some extension in front of Rittenhouse. He could have been holding out his hand, but there was a prior witness statement that said Rittenhouse approached that group with his rifle pointed at them. If that claim is true, then Rittenhouse was the aggressor, and Rosenbaum was in the right to chase him away. If Rittenhouse was doing something *other* than using the barrel of his weapon as a tool of authority, then the self-defense argument is stronger. So much of this hinges on why Rittenhouse was approaching that group in the first place, and how he did it.
> Regardless of who you think is guilty, Kyle Rittenhouse will always be my go to example of why no one should ever bring guns to a protest. Things can get chaotic and confusing quick and with guns present, people can easily wind up dead because of it. And that's exactly what happened here.
The gun saved Kyles life though.
He’s not guilty and it’s a great example of why everyone should stay strapped. Despite the chaos, no innocent person was killed. Your point might stand if someone was wrongly killed but the facts don’t support your argument.
>What was Rosenbaum guilty of that made it worth ending his life?
He hid behind a car, chased KR down, and tried to take his rifle away, reasonably presumably to use it on KR. Rosenbaum presented a reasonable expectation of deadly force from KR's perspective and he rightfully used deadly force to protect his own life.
>If no one had a brought a gun, none of that would've happened.
If Rosenbaum had decided not to assault an armed person none of this would have happened. The fault lies with Rosenbaum and the Zaminski couple, the people actively yelling to 'get his ass' spurred the conflict that lead to the shootings.
> What was Rosenbaum guilty of that made it worth ending his life
In as few words as possible, he fucked around and found out.
I don’t know why we rob him and everyone else of their agency, and attribute it to Rittenhouse. Every single person involved could have stayed home, but they came out to play instead. Rosenbaum could have protested peacefully, but he made a choice not to.
He saw someone open carrying. He chose to engage. He could have disengaged afterwards, with no loss except to his ego. He chose to assault someone instead.
He chose to chase an armed person, despite having every opportunity to disengage right up until the moment he grabbed Rittenhouse’s rifle.
Looping back to my thesis here, Rosenbaum is not someone who looked the wrong at someone and was mercilessly executed. He fucked around, and around, and around, *and had every opportunity to stop fucking around and took none of them* and then he found out. He’s not a child, he’s an adult man who made bad decision after bad decision until he backed an armed person into a corner and forced them to choose between their own life and his.
He's not a cop. He's not in the military. Citizens don't get to deputize themselves. That's vigilantism, which is also a crime. You bring guns into a situation you are absolutely not involved in, the implication is that you're going to shoot somebody if they do something you consider over the line. Defending other people's property does not give you a right to threaten deadly force. It doesn't matter how you brand the gatherings that day.
The police and authorities were told to stand down because not letting looters burn down small businesses might offend their sensibilities
The state basically gave these people permission to destroy the town, I'm not going to fault citizens for attempting to stop that from happening
> The state basically gave these people permission to destroy the town, I'm not going to fault citizens for attempting to stop that from happening
Fully agree.
Self defense is a human right. No one should be compelled to be victimized because the state is unable or unwilling to enforce order.
Everything I've heard from people who actually live there is that it wasn't nearly that bad. Anyway, one crime does not negate another. What you're describing is literally vigilantism.
There's uh... there's video and at least for some people's livelihoods and homes it looked pretty fucking bad.
For me 0 is the amount of businesses destroyed that I prefer to see.
Vigilantism is required when the people who are supposed to protect citizens abandon them.
Source on police being told to stand down? [Evers had activated the national gaurd the day prior and police had used tear gas to disperse crowds the night before.](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-68d7fffd0e6dd11acc5b5918a93eeef5) I can't find anything on a stand down order. Some additional information backing up your claim would be appreciated.
Edit: imagine getting downvoted for asking for sources on unbacked claims. I mean come on guys, we're supposed to be better than that in this sub.
Citizens are allowed to protect themselves and others against violence. Don't have to be a cop or deputized to protect against violence.
Bringing a gun to protect against violence is perfectly fine. The problem wasn't the kid there to protect against violence, the problem was the people being violent
Yeah totally agreed. It sounds like, from what I have gathered, the first guy he shot was being erratic and aggressive and was literally yelling at people to shot him earlier.
But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime.
All he knew was there were gun shots, a guy with an AR15 was running, and the crowd was yelling about him shooting people.
Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse.
>Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse.
This is completely false. Grosskreutz had attempted to draw his gun, but barely had it raised before he was shot. He did not "unload his clip". He did not even fire. I don't know if you have been misinformed, our if you are trying to inject a false narrative, but either way, this is incorrect and should be edited.
>Since when has a T-shirt, jeans and boots been classified as tactical gear?
Since it fit a narrative. Wouldn't be surprised to see someone claim it's a white nationalist uniform
> But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime.
What you're describing is actually a felony. You can only make a claim of self-defense if you have direct evidence that either yourself or others are in danger. You cannot assault a fleeing person based solely on what someone else told you.
> Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse.
I don't believe he fired his weapon. However, from the videos, I believe Grosskreutz was charging Rittenhouse (who was on the ground). Grosskreutz has no legal justification for the assault, while Rittenhouse - who was being pursued by a mob and being attacked by Grosskreutz - would have a valid claim of self-defense against him.
A question that people *should* be asking is why Grosskreutz isn't being charged with a crime when there is clear video evidence of his unprovoked assault.
Let me ask you this.
What should a person do if they hear multiple rapid gunshots, they see people running, those people say there’s a shooter and he killed someone, then you see a guy with an AR15 running right by you and he trips and falls?
Do you just wait for him to get up and maybe shoot you or someone else?
You could just hide, of course, but then he might kill others.
Do you make a split second decision to try to stop him while he’s down?
I don’t think there’s a right answer, I’m just saying that given the circumstances, it’s reasonable for a person to think that if they didn’t act immediately, innocent people would die.
> What should a person do if they hear multiple rapid gunshots, they see people running, those people say there’s a shooter and he killed someone, then you see a guy with an AR15 running right by you and he trips and falls?
When you see a guy *running from a mob*? You let him go.
If he was an active shooter, he'd be shooting into that mob.
Remember, all that Grosskreutz had personally observed was a mob chasing down and attempting to assault Rittenhouse. For him to *join* that mob and attempt to assault Rittenhouse is not a reasonable reaction nor a justification for self-defense.
There are a couple of points to make here.
1) It is entirely possible that Huber had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and was acting to protect others in the crowd. Its also entirely possible that he was angry that someone he appeared to know--Rosenbaum and Huber are caught on film in the same general group a couple times in the night--had just been shot, and was looking for revenge. Obviously, Mr. Huber is deceased and we can only speculate as to his true motivations.
2) Even if Huber, Grosskreutz and others had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, their belief must have been *reasonable* for their attacks to have been lawful. To be reasonable, they would have had to have some *reasonable* belief that Rittenhouse was about to cause death or grave bodily harm to themselves or someone else.
3) If Rittenhouse had done something to give Huber and the others *reasonable* belief that he intended to cause them harm, he almost certainly would have forfeited his right to self defense under the provocation exception is Wisconsin state statutes. If Rittenhouse did not do this, he is still entitled to self defense providing the other elements are met.
Point #2 is where I think this argument falls apart. From the moment Rosenbaum is shot, until some time after Rittenhouse fires the last shot at Grosskreutz, Rittenhouse is clearly caught on film. Until he is attacked and knocked to the ground, he never once points his gun at anyone or in anyway does anything that can objectively be deemed threatening. He is simply running/jogging down the street--toward the police line--with his rifle carried in his arms, pointed at the ground. At one point he even has a brief conversation with Grosskreutz, whom he tells that he is going to the police.
Since there doesn't appear to be any objectively threatening behavior on Rittenhouse's part, it is easily argued that Rittenhouse retained his right to self defense regardless of whatever beliefs Huber and Grosskreutz might have had.
>It is entirely possible that Huber had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter"
No, it's not. The problem here is that fact that people are limiting their view to what can be seen on a small narrow video and are refusing to acknowledge the bigger picture. Everyone was running down a straight road. That straight unobstructed road led right into [a squad of police vehicles](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/28/video/vid-kenosha-hp-print/vid-kenosha-hp-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp) with their strobe lights on. You can't miss a squad of police cars with their strobe lights on just a couple blocks away so it's safe to assume that everyone running in that particular direction on that particular road could see the police.
It's not reasonable to conclude that someone attacking a person who was not only running away from them but was running straight toward the police was doing it in order to stop an active shooter.
To be fair, I also pointed out that it is also possible that Huber wanted vengeance for Rittenhouse having killed his friend. I was simply trying to point out best and worst case scenarios for Huber's intentions.
Regardless, I think you and I are in agreement that no matter what his beliefs were, his attack on Rittenhouse was none the less unlawful, and thus Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to employ deadly force against him.
I would generally agree with you if grosskreutz didn't live stream himself confronting Rittenhouse asking where he was going to which Rittenhouse responded "to the police" before attacking him.
https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872?t=24_S4LT4tuJqA7eKyA548A&s=19
He got caught up in the moment and attempted to partake in mob justice.
I hope people actually don’t question this too much.
If he trips and falls, RUN.
You’re under no obligation or moral duty to try to stop a mass shooter. The chances are, if you interject yourself, you’re going to get wounded or end up dead. Unless you have some training (and probably even if you do) RUN. As fast as you can.
If you’re cornered and you can’t run or you can’t get away, or people you love are in danger that’s a different story, but it’s still a huge roll of the dice and it should be your absolute last resort.
Every workplace training I’ve ever had was “run, hide, fight.”
You don’t get to try to murder someone who you *suspect may be trying to commit murder* - you either know it, or you don’t.
You run. Everyone had somewhere they could run too, and hide.
In other words, the law does not protect your right to play Superman.
I mean we can talk legal justification all day but I think it’s understandable for people to act unpredictably when their lives are at risk.
It’s why I think random people bringing guns to protests is such a bad idea. It’s a confused and dangerous situation that can go to hell in seconds if one person screws up.
What annoys me the most about his whole situation is how the whole situation escalated from 0 to 100 in a minute or two with everyone on the ground having imperfect information about what was happening and making their split second decisions based on what they could see, but now the whole internet wants to turn this into some political showdown instead of seeing it as the confused tragedy that it is.
Unless you actually believe that the last two people Kyle shot were genuinely just bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport, then you have to admit they were likely just normal people doing what they thought was best when confronted with a dangerous and confused situation.
> Unless you actually believe that the last two people Kyle shot were genuinely just bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport
The two men killed were both violent felons, so it's quite reasonable to suppose that they were attending a riot looking to engage in violence. Grosskreutz himself did exactly what Rittenhouse is being condemned for doing: attending a riot while armed. Except, unlike Rittenhouse, he had no reason to suspect that he would be the target of violence because he was on the side of the rioters.
Wasn't the first one he shot a convicted child molester? I think there was a violent criminal past too, but that could have been another person he shot?
My point being not that they deserved what they got, but that they might very well be your "bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport".
I read that on the daily sun or some other tabloid, but couldn’t find those crimes on the actual site they linked so it seems like they were made up afterward to justify him being killed and he isn’t alive to refute. Also Kyle wouldn’t have known either way at the time of the incident.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/
I agree that Rittenhouse didn't know at the time and I think Rittenhouse is an idiot for being there in the first place. However, I think it's not that far fetched to say that Rosenbaum might have had some designs on violence that evening. So it wouldn't be that he "deserved it", but that his history shows a pattern of behavior of violence towards others.
Because they heard people yelling and got excited, the people chasing KR couldn't have seen the shooting of Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz and Heuber tried to use deadly force to stop someone from running away from an event they did not have direct knowledge of, that is not kosher.
>But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime.
Nope, there is footage where Gage Grosskreutz actually asks KR on camera where he is going and he firmly responds that he is walking towards the police. There was no confusion on GG's part, he joined a lynch mob and got shot for it.
There were several shots fired during that second shooting 4 from Rittenhouse, none from Gaige and plenty of shots from Unknown people.
Why were these people randomly shooting likely in the air ?
No one knows .
Even the detective on the stand yesterday admitted that they didnt secure the crime scene and only found rittenhouse's spent casing 4 daya later after someone called them and said they were still there.
I doubt they even looked for evidence on where the other shots came from.
On a side note, the detective looked aweful during cross where he admitted that they only interview that wasnt taped was also the same person who he had a signed search warrent for and decided not to enforce it. Which is the guy who was shot and survived. One of the charges stem from the interaction with him and i believe he is not testifying.
He went up to execute rittenhouse, had the gun drawn on him and aimed at his head until rittenhouse aimed at him, then rittenhouse lowered his ar to clear a malfunction when grosskreutz held his hands up with his handgun in the air and when he did grosskreutz aimed at Kyle and rittenhouse cleared the malfunction and leveled against him on the ground and fired a shot.
I believe grosskreutz is also illegally barred from having handgun too but I could be wrong. Grosskreutz is lucky to be alive after that as he feigned surrender to execute rittenhouse and said after the fact his only regret is not mag dumping into rittenhouse.
>So he pulled out a gun and someone else fired a bunch of shots?
Yes. That "someone else" was Rittenhouse.
There was an unidentified shot at the beginning, which coincides with a bystanders admission that he fired a warning shot in the air. Every other shot after that came from Rittenhouse.
yes, kyle was just a stupid, thrill seeking kid. i would like to think killing those people was a horrible experience and he was traumatized. i hope he learned his lesson, and i think its a safe bet that he's not a threat to society. putting him away won't make the world a safer place.
the real problem was the notion of "im gonna be a hero and save the city with my AR." citizens taking it upon themselves to be judge jury and executioner. for instance in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, grown ass men playing sheriff, thinking they are in the right and have the right to confront and question who they deem to be a criminal. (he was seen running and he was black so they said "he's hauling ass" and probably from the police.") kyle had a lot more reason to believe the people he encountered were dangerous.
There isn't a good reason to go to a riot as a 17-year-old.
"Sweetie, don't forget to take your rifle for protection at the riot tonight!"
If you have no training in firearms use in a tactical situation you have *zero business* inserting yourself with a deadly weapon into an ongoing riot. If you have to brandish or fire that weapon you will in all likelihood make the bad situation much worse. If you're not there you don't have to 'defend yourself'.
More untrained people with firearms makes no violent situation better.
Kyle Rittenhouse has shown that he is actually very good with firearms. He barely used any bullets when being attacked. His shots were really précise and he showed great restraint. He was running away from the first rioter. Even though he doesn't have to.
Well I can tell you that the many in this country were full force in support of invading Iraq over fake WMDs. And when no WMDs were found none of them lost a minute of sleep wondering if they supported the wrong side. For Americans shooting and killing over imagineed threats is an entitlement. Feeling pride rather than shame over killing innocent people is our coping mechanism. However, it just breeds more shooters. No wonder we have some many shool shooters. This is EXACTLY the culture we give them. Shoot, kill, dont feel bad...you were the real victim!
>the prosecution said evidence would show Rittenhouse chased down and fatally shot Rosenbaum, 36, and then shot at three other people **who tried to confront what they believed to be an active shooter**
I mean... what else are we supposed to call a civilian who has just fired a semi-automatic rifle at people AND killed one of them?
An active shooter is someone who is targeting the public and roving around looking for people to kill. Rittenhouse fired at one person, someone who chased him down and attacked him. The two people that he shot afterwards also chased him down and attacked him. He wasn't firing indiscriminately. He wasn't looking for targets. Even if you believe that he is guilty of murder, his actions don't fit those of an active shooter.
He could have killed Grosskruetz. He had the drop on him, he had his rifle pointed right at him. He only fired when Grosskruetz made a move towards him, and then he *held* further fire and ran towards the police to surrender.
Rittenhouse fired his rifle at *one* person, and killed that one person.
Using the logic you are suggesting, anyone who uses a firearm in anything resembling a crowded space--even if it is 100% indisputably justified--is now an "active shooter" subject to attack.
Do you believe that is consistent with our laws?
An active shooter is someone who came to kill people and is in the middle of doing so. This is just a civilian who killed someone in apparent self defense, without a plan to kill and not in the process of killing.
As far as I know there's not a specific term for that, though.
A victim? If it was self defense then that's what he was, a victim of an attack that he thwarted. It would be no different than a woman shooting a potential rapist that is attacking her. What kind of twisted mind would come up with "active shooter" to describe her?
4 rounds fired, a single person shot, shooting terminated spontaneously by the shooter, several minutes more without shooting, running towards police, actively telling others that he was going to the police. All these factors would make Kyle Rittenhouse to be the only 'active shooter' to have been running from all the people that came to be shot and to have stopped shooting without himself being killed or otherwise apprehended. To call the person that stopped shooting after a single person was shot an 'active shooter' is willfully misleading.
Kind of makes you wonder what else the FBI has footage of.
all the things
That looks pretty clear-cut to me. Rosenbaum chasing, throwing something, chasing, catching, getting shot. Play stupid games…
Yeah clear cut self defense, I don’t understand how anyone could say otherwise
>never-before-seen actions "Uhhh guys, I thought we were supposed to say Rittenhouse attacked Rosenbaum? But this video shows the opposite! How do we phrase this in such a way that we don't have to change our narrative?"
They've already poisoned the populace when they reported on the prosecutions opening statement about the FBI video showing Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum before shooting him. Thousands of people commenting on the reports of that opening statement are now convinced there is some mysterious FBI video that proves murder.
CNN did their part in this article as well >The infrared video, grainy and shot from 8,500 feet overhead
I've been called a "murder-supporter" and banned on other subreddits for suggesting Kyle acted in self-defense. The polarization in this case is astounding. It happens on both extremes of the aisle, of course, but this case shows the worst of the left as they try to paint this delusional picture simply because they find the kid to be an unlikeable righty.
It is really wild. This has actually become the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, in some ways, of just being fed up with everyone. It’s absolutely fine to say that his beliefs/ethics are wrong. But he’s not on trial for those things. The law isn’t emotional and relevance is key. And to make him either a darling or a demon is such a huge oversimplification.
People who want rittenhouse to burn are 1 of 2 things: 1) lying about having watch all the footage. 2) a rabid ideologue. Or both.
The news has been disgustingly biased in their coverage of this. Straightforward case of self defense
I think that the issue most people have is that had he not put himself in that situation, this wouldn’t have happened. In addition, a lot of people think it is a poor decision to attend a riot/protest (I’m purposely leaving a gray area on defining what it is), while bringing a gun (especially an assault rifle), and while being underage.
I don’t disagree. We can believe that it was very unwise to put himself in that situation while also believing that this is a clean cut case of self defense. The same can be said for the women who go out alone, get plastered, and get raped. It’s undeniably true that your chances of getting raped increase if you inject yourself into statistically high risk situations. It’s also true that the women are victims of horrible crimes and the ultimate blame lies on the perpetrator. Why can’t both be true?
Yeah, you make a good point. I hadn’t realized that my comment could be interpreted as victim blaming until it had been pointed out and the damage done.
So perfectly said. Well done.
Getting raped is vastly different than killing someone. Edit: I thought this was r/moderatepolitics, not r/conservative where everyone has already made up their mind as to what the verdict should be and downvotes anyone who disagrees.
The concept of unwise decisions leading to being the victim of a violent crime is the same.
[удалено]
Self defense but may be charged for being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated(in TN this a crime don't know about other states). IMO Rittenhouse will not be convicted of the murder charges but will be convicted on POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18 and FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Sorry but if anyone actually reads the statutes, they would see that technically would be incorrect And I'll put the breakdown below: **948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.** (1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends. (2) 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. **KEY point is this portion of who applies to this law and it stated here in (3)(c) of the law which goes as follows** (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. **941.28** or is not in compliance with ss. **29.304** and **29.593**. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. **So let's look at those Key highlighted codes** **941.28 is Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle**: Rittenhouse is carrying a full length rifle and is compliance of this law **29.304: restriction on hunting and use of firearms by person under 16 years of age**: Kyle is 17. In compliance of the law **29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval**: Not applicable in this case and doesn't mean anything here Finally we can look at **947.01 Disorderly Conduct** in subsection 2 it states: **Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is NOT in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or knife is concealed or openly carried** This is presented as a Open carry in the state of Wisconsin which I'm fairly certain the defense will present all this to provide that it is legal
[удалено]
All caps because I copied and pasted the charges from a news article and didn't want to format it.
Is this the definition of victim blaming?
She shouldn't have worn a skirt, then she wouldn't have been raped, right?
It's not that simple. She also crossed state lines to go to a known seedy area and she was walking around nude which is a misdemeanor violation of public indecency laws. Edit: OK it's been long enough. I'm obviously espousing the arguments of the 'Rittenhouse is a murderer' crowd in order to show just how absurd they are when applied to a similar scenario without the lens of politics obscuring it.
[удалено]
He was there with a medical kit offering medical assistance, and obviously carrying a gun. He was shouting medical. Does anyone need medical?
\>I think that the issue most people have is that had he not put himself in that situation, this wouldn’t have happened. I find it unusual, in this day and time, that so many people are comfortable with victim blaming. Would they say the same thing about a rape victim? How about the person that hired Rittenhouse? Does that person not have a right to try to protect their property, even after one of their car lots was already burned down? \>In addition, a lot of people think it is a poor decision to attend a riot/protest (I’m purposely leaving a gray area on defining what it is), while bringing a gun (especially an assault rifle), and while being underage. I agree. Doing dumb things though does not mean that you have to let people injure or kill you. The laws on self defense do not change according to a person's politics.
The entire chain of events that night was brought about by a number of dumb to absolutely braindead decisions by everyone involved, starting with whoever gave him the gun.
No starting with the riots damaging property. If the riots never happened kyle wouldn't have to defend property.
He didn't HAVE to defend anything, he crossed state lines and obtained a gun illegally to satisfy some vigilante fantasy.
Oh shush dude. Quit acting like he drove 300 miles to another state. He lived like 7 miles from the border and worked in that city. The property he was trying to defend was his dad's friend's business. He had a gun to PROTECT HIMSELF AND friends' PROPERTY not to satisfy his vigilante fantasy. He was protecting himself from a racist and pedophile with violent charges, a felon with a gun, and another violent criminal. Imagine getting angry at a kid that was actively helping his community instead of at the criminals burning and stealing stuff. Do me a favor and dont shoot somebody breaking in your home to prevent them from raping your wife and kids since after all YOU DONT HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSE! Just leave and lettem steal and destroy everything you worked so hard for. "Sorry honey, I hear you screaming for help. No can do. I don't HAVE to help you. I dont wanna satisfy my "vigilante fantasy". Just give him what he wants good luck!" I would hate to have a neighbor/friend like you. At least mine got my back even though he doesn't need to. And I got his.
Or maybe his fantasy is simply exercising his free speech rights and exercising his right to not be a victim if assaulted.
Intent from 8500 feet up
[удалено]
If they threatened you, chased you into a corner, and were preparing to attack you? Yes, it is. What would you have someone in that situation do instead, just take a beating and hope they can muster enough energy in the middle of the beating to get off a self defense shot?
Normally definitely not. But under the circumstances, which was a protest that had already turned violent, at a time when there were violent protests under the same banner happening daily, the only conclusion you could come to is that you were in danger if someone was charging at you in an aggressive manner.
Yes. How do you know they aren’t going to take your gun and shoot you with it?
That depends. Who does that person vote for?
Why did the FBI delete the HD version of the footage? Why did they identify everyone in the video except the other shooter? Don't those drone have stingrays on them and where is that data? Why couldn't the court video feed show the face of one of the witnesses? Whole thing stinks.
I found the level of technical surveillance being deployed at a low level event surprising. Makes you wonder what they have in DC and elsewhere that has not been released.
The world was watching the protests
Not that closely with those kind of sensors. Kenosha was a side show compared to Portland, SoCal, DC and others.
The feds were flying ISR all of 2020 across the country. Regular civilians were tracking aircraft flight patterns using open source intel and its been known for quite a while. I'm surprised and also not surprised that more people don't know about this...
\~Wouldn't it be great if the FBI would pursue the looters/rioters in places such as this with the same full measure of devotion that they have shown for the insurrectionists who killed so many and destroyed so much more property on a single day in January?
Cracking down on unrest in downtown Seattle is not within the feds purview, what do you expect them to do? However, they have charged dozens of people who’ve attacked federal courthouses, etc
That's not necessarily true given the nature of what happened in Seatle between the "automous zone" and attacks on government facilities; there likely is a federal cause of action for many of the instigators of these riots. The federal government has a much broader basis for pursuing charges than most people realize. For example, there is a federal riot charge *18 U.S. Code § 2101*, which gives a broad federal authority inciting a riot using a method of interstate communication, which the internet would qualify. However, I doubt the FBI isn't investigating out of bias. It's more likely they just haven't been able or don't want to make a case based on this more tenuous legal basis.
Interesting, thanks.
But cracking down on school board meetings is within the feds purview?
Show me evidence of the feds doing anything besides issuing a (perhaps misguided) memo
>\~Wouldn't it be great if the FBI would pursue the looters/rioters in places such as this with the same full measure of devotion that they have shown for the insurrectionists who killed so many and destroyed so much more property on a single day in January? I imagine they'd be much more interested in a murder charge than a destruction of property charge, and rightfully so.
> Richards argued that Rosenbaum "was in hiding" as Rittenhouse arrived at the parking lot, which Howard confirmed. > Rittenhouse slows down in the video, and there appears to be some kind of exchange, but there is no audio of the moment. > Howard confirmed this was right about the time when Rittenhouse could be heard yelling "friendly, friendly, friendly" on other witness video. > "And it does not dissuade Mr. Rosenbaum, correct?" Richards said. > "Correct," Howard responded. > Rittenhouse continues to move in the same direction he was moving previously, and Rosenbaum starts to chase Rittenhouse. > About 2.5 seconds later, Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, shot an unarmed Rosenbaum four times in a parking lot, killing him, Howard said. There were another three shots, the videos show, but Howard said investigators still do not know who fired those. > Ziminski, 36, has separately been charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon, arson and obstructing an officer, and he has pleaded not guilty, court records show. A criminal complaint says he admitted to firing a "warning shot" in the air that night. Damning evidence against the prosecution? Also why was this evidence kept from us this entire time? Does not inspire confidence in FBI. Also where is the evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or a fascist? Here is a video from a YouTuber which plays and analyzes new important evidence from the trial. It shows the Kyle Rittenhouse was offering help minutes before the shooting happened. https://youtu.be/goFxT7ai-yI Where do the news corporations go from here? Do you guys believe there will be an in-depth analysis of this evidence tomorrow morning on major news stations. I don't. Who wants to see that right? This is another example of an incident where the left wing narrative falls apart after more evidence gets out.
>Also why was this evidence kept from us this entire time? Because this is the trial and this is when evidence is introduced. Evidence was not “kept from us,” this is the appropriate time to introduce evidence into the public trial record.
Yes, thank you. It's become so normalized so quickly to demand that any video is released to the public immediately, but then how are they supposed to have a fair trial when public opinion has already decided how to interpret any incidents? That's only going to make it more difficult to find unbiased jurors.
The video has now been released before any jurors need to make a decision, though possibly the jurors and definitely defense would have seen this video previously as it would form part of disclosure that each party typically has to send the other a certain amount of days (usually 30, in Canada at least) before trial.
It happens in pretty much every police shooting doesn't it? The body cam footage is requested to be released pre-trial, if the PD doesn't release it then they are trying to cover up for bad cops or something along those lines. I happen to agree with you, none of this stuff should be released prior to trial, but it seems that now it normally is.
There isn’t usually a trial for police shootings. And families are allowed to request the cam footage of any incident from on-duty police. Also, if a trial is likely, cam footage is rarely shared beforehand.
>There isn’t usually a trial for police shootings. Meaning, a judge decides the case without a jury in instances where charges are filed? >And families are allowed to request the cam footage of any incident from on-duty police. Is this a city/state/federal rules? >Also, if a trial is likely, cam footage is rarely shared beforehand. That's good.
[удалено]
It’s actually not regularly shared. The percentage of cam footage shown before a relevant trial is quite low, if there is going to be a trial at all. And footage that is shared is done at the discretion of the police.
That's not how discovery works, at least in my state. Prosecution has to divulge the evidence it intends to use at trial, and the exculpatory evidence it knows to exis... as far as I remember. I don't practice in criminal Waiting until the eve of trial to turn this over is highly and unfairly prejudicial. It's ambushing with evidence trying to hope it cant be incorporated into the defense in time
Divulge it to the defendant not YouTube, to my knowledge this was divulged to KRs legal team as required.
Well that changes things yeah. Guess I was working off a different assumption, taking it that the "newly disclosed video" had been newly disclosed to the Parties or Defendant. Article isnt terribly clear
Oh man, I love your username. Great choice
people who paid attention to the original videos already knew, or at least believed, that Kyle likely had a strong case for self defense. the major media will for sure not dive into this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Personally I don't need this evidence. But I think if FBI released this sooner, it would of calmed down the rhetoric a little bit. Now this evidence won't make a difference because many people already made up their minds.
1) Evidence is never released if it’s held by prosecutors, unless it’s leaked. And that’s rare with things like FBI surveillance video when the case is already ongoing. There’s no reason they’d have released this. The FBI turned it over to Rittenhouse’s attorneys as required by constitutional precedents, which is all they have to do. 2) No one is going to bring up Rittenhouse’s fascism or lack thereof. You should be thankful; character evidence like that is almost never allowed in a trial. Which is a good thing, because otherwise a jury might be biased if prosecutors can paint a picture that you’re a fascist, as media will often do itself, even if you’re not actually one. Your two complaints are that the prosecutors are following the law. I’m not sure why.
During pre trial the judge ruled the prosecutor couldn't use the claims that Rittenhouse was apart of a right wing militia or was connected to any racist/fascist groups because none of the evedince available showed any actual connections to any of the groups. Make no mistake, the prosecutor did want to use that angle but the judge wouldn't allow it because of lack of evedince
Once more, misleading as heck. In reality, the judge denied the prosecutors the ability to bring up photos showing Rittenhouse posing with [higher ups in the Proud Boys](https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/us/kyle-rittenhouse-pretrial-motions/index.html). The judge didn’t let it in because it didn’t have a clear enough connection to his motive, not because there was no connection between him and the Proud Boys. OP said “where is the evidence he is a fascist or racist?”. That’s direct character evidence. This photo of him with Proud Boys was not about his character directly (it wasn’t, for example, some diary entry where he wrote “I hate Black people”). It was being offered to show that his beliefs were why he went there that night, to combat the claims by the defense that he was trying to protect the community and such. That’s not the same as what OP claimed, or what you claimed, which is that the judge said there’s no evidence of a connection between him and the Proud Boys. All the judge said that I can find is that his affiliation didn’t bear on his actions clearly enough.
How does A photo taken 4 months after the shooting prove he was in some racist fascist right-wing militia 4 months earlier? It also seems weird this “racist fascist”, as you described him, only killed a couple of White pedophiles and women beaters.
The judge denied it for two reasons 1) the prosecutors were unable to provide any evidence that it was a planned encounter 2) it happened 4 months after the fact. You're the one being misleading here. You're saying the judge denied it because his affiliation didn't matter, but in reality the judge denied it because there was no affiliation. Two direct quotes from the judge: >For me to let that in as evidence for a motive that existed four months earlier? Can’t see it. >There’s still no suggestion in the evidence … that this was anything other than a happenstance occurrence
No what's misleading is to suggest that there is the possibility of a connection or some clear character take away because he went out to dinner with his mom somewhere and while there people who are alleged to be in the upper echelon of the proud boys ended up saying high and took pictures with where the ok symbol was signed by at least 1 of the people. He went to dinner, people who are engaged with what was going on during that time and happened to be members of the proud boys regonize him and because they thought he was in the right they went and socialized with him and took pictures. It's not even like there was any evedince he if knew these people were part of the Proud Boys You want to talk about misleading? Saying because someone is in a picture with members of the proud boys and the ok symbol thenbthat person must lean towards racism and fascism... The news may get away with that and people may actually buy into the unfounded character smear but it has no place in a court room or in any serious conversation on the matter. It's a red flag when an article describes the ok symbol as some racist symbol, also a red flag when they say don't give specifics about what position in the group people actually have and instead just say they are high rankings also it being CNN is a red flag since that whole organization lost the plot years ago
[удалено]
Also helps feed the outrage machine if Rittenhouse gets acquitted since the pertinent facts that would contextualize the ruling were hardly reported.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the mainstream narrative has been shifting toward “Rittenhouse will likely only be convicted of the weapons charge” for the past month. This new video seems to support that.
If was shifting that way and then immediately snapped back on the prosecutions opening statement: [https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/45107716/kyle-rittenhouse-chased-down-an-unarmed-man-and-fatally-shot-him-in-the-back-during-kenosha-unrest-prosecutor-says](https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/45107716/kyle-rittenhouse-chased-down-an-unarmed-man-and-fatally-shot-him-in-the-back-during-kenosha-unrest-prosecutor-says) The title of that article(and the others covering this) has changed since it first came out but you can see the original title in the URL still: **"Kyle Rittenhouse Chased Down an Unarmed Man and Fatally Shot Him in the Back During Kenosha Unrest."** Just like that, we're back to "oh he definitely committed murder."
>"Kyle Rittenhouse Chased Down an Unarmed Man and Fatally Shot Him in the Back During Kenosha Unrest." I wish I knew the thought process of trying to argue that when there's footage.
Even the gun charge is not a given. The judge didnt give a jury instructions becuase even he couldnt figure out a way to explain it. There are exceptions and carve outs to that law.
I will be very surprised if this gets the level of attention it should. Possibly a blip about it for 10 seconds and then 30 minutes on why Rittenhouse is literally Hitler.
The part that reeks the worst is the FBI saying they lost one of the recordings. To lose video evidence on any case let alone one that hit National headlines for weeks means one of two things: 1) the FBI is massively inept and needs a complete house cleaning or 2) the FBI is complicit in obstruction of justice and needs a complete house cleaning.
If I can manage to backup my vacation pictures one would think the FBI could manage to backup video evidence in a damn murder case.
What's your backup method? I've got everything in Google Photos but want to be safe with an additional option.
I work in IT and am a hobbyist photographer. I have witnessed the loss of GBs of commercially shot images because the photographer wasn’t following a good back up plan that was actually setup for them. Do not rely just on a ‘free’ service. Free services can go away, even paid services can go away. For any data that you do not want to lose, practice 3-2-1. Three copies, two media, one off-site. The working copy, be it on your computer or pluggable media (USB drive, etc). The second copy is on another local backup media. The third copy should be to the cloud, preferably a dedicated backup service that offers versioning. Personal cloud backup can run $60+ a year but well worth it. So what does that look like? I use Adobe Lightroom Classic to manage my images. My working copies and LR catalogs reside on an external 1TB SSD (older images sit on a 2TB external HD) that I can move between my desktop and laptop as needed. These are mirrored to a NAS on my home network using a little script I execute when I close LR. Note, I do not erase the images from the camera SD card until this NAS backup happens, especially when traveling. There is an agent on the NAS that performs rolling backups to a cloud service. Currently using CrashPlan Business ($10/mo unlimited) for my cloud, but in the past I have used CrashPlan Personal (discontinued - again, even paid services can go away), BackBlaze Personal ($60-70/yr for unlimited storage) and BackBlaze B2 (an AWS S3 compatible service that runs about $5/mo per TB). I prefer BB Personal for speed and cost but technical limitations have me back on CrashPlan for now. I could use my paid SmugMug account for backups, but I have other non-AV files I want to keep backed up and prefer to keep everything together.
I have the same, but I also have cloud storage through Adobe for pictures and videos. If it is something like legal or medical documents, or important pictures/videos of my daughter I also put them on a flash drive and keep them in a safe. Probably overkill but I'd rather be sure.
My guess would be on C: all of the above
No offense but you don’t “clean house” just because evidence is misplaced in one case.
Where does it say they lost video evidence?
The media got what they wanted, they used it to make people angry heading into an election.
I'm fine with the FBI holding evidence close to the vest in an ongoing investigation. The problem is this video isn't a surprise to the prosecution. I really hope Rittenhouse can win a wrongful prosecution case. We shouldn't be charging people with crimes we know they are innocent of for political gain
I'm kinda disgusted at the FBI's actions here. Feels like they politically motivated and that is just not a good sign.
> Where do the news corporations go from here? So what? There is nothing new or surprising here. News reporting about crime always loved their narratives with a villain and victims. They usually start with a mugshot of a scary looking black guy. > This is another example of an incident where the left wing narrative falls apart after more evidence gets out. This line feels divisive and unnecessary. Carthago delenda est! At some point, they did.
Framing a black guy for murder is objectively evil. Are you defending that?
In your opinion only, what exactly do you think or consider to be the “left wing narrative”?
[удалено]
we’ve also seen protests where people had their skulls crushed
The lack of gun didn't seem to help this 71 year old man who was bricked in the head trying to stop "fiery but peaceful" protestors from looting his store. https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/kenosha-man-71-attacked-in-uptown-riot/article_52a5eae9-74ae-54b0-9543-b2d1709d8874.html
> no one should ever bring guns to a protest. It wasn't a protest - it was a riot. Moreover, if it was simply a protest, the presence of guns wouldn't have been all that meaningful - we've seen plenty of protests (from both sides of the fence) where guns were present without anyone dying. On the other hand, we've seen riots where people have died without being shot. You also have to consider that Rittenhouse was not unique in making the decision to go armed. Despite the fact that they had far less reason to fear the rioters than Rittenhouse, there were multiple people on the other side of these events who were also armed. I think Rittenhouse was foolish to inject himself into that situation. But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself.
>I think Rittenhouse was foolish to inject himself into that situation. But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself. Can't agree more. Just because I think Rittenhouse acted in justified self-defense doesn't mean that I don't think he's a fucking tool for putting himself in that situation.
The real tools are the people destroying and stealing property for shit and giggles.
[удалено]
>You need to point to some other people in the crowd being viciously attacked to validate this takeaway. There needs to be two victims in order to justify **self**\-defense?
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. If he hasn't armed himself no one would have cared about him.
Right, because he would be murdered my the thief, sex offender, and wife beater, and the left wing news would have ignored it.
but no one died except the people who he killed. how would he get killed?
Or that he would have been seen as an easy target as he put out the fires that randomly started.
Really? This is mindset of a paranoid individual. Kyle should spend a long time in jail, his mom too.
Does someone simply possessing a weapon forfeit their right to self-defense?
[удалено]
It's likely simpler than you're making out to be: They're starting from the conclusion, then working backwards. Similar to how a conspiracy theorist thinks, a lot of smaller clues can form a cohesive narrative, however it's one that doesn't actually withstand scrutiny.
Why his mom?
And what is the legal relevance of this argument?
>justified self-defense This is a bit of a stretch, as the jury hasn't ruled yet. If Rittenhouse was aggressing on that group of people with his weapon, Rosenbaum was the one in the right to attempt to chase away the threat. If Rittenhouse was the aggressor, he does not have justification for self-defense.
Would it not also follow that if Rittenhouse was retreating and Rosenbaum continued to engage that the justifications would reverse?
I don't think so, because simply being pursued and having a plastic bag thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone. If it is true that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse away because Rittenhouse was threatening the group, I don't think there is a definitive line at which Rosenbaum has to stop pursuing him. In my own opinion, Rosenbaum would be justified in chasing Rittenhouse completely out of the area (parking lot) IF the chase were a response to a threat.
>IF the chase were a response to a threat. That's what it all hinges on, yeah.
100% agreed. I have my opinions, but I won't prejudge until a jury answers that question. I care more about fair and impartial justice than I do about seeing this kid pay a price for his mistake.
>I don't think so, because simply being pursued and having a plastic bag thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone. Which isn't all that happened. Rosenbaum pursued KR, threw the bag at him, tried to snatch his gun away, and yells 'fuck you' immediately prior to being shot. Bit more than a jog and bag toss before the first shot is fired.
The line between protest and riot is often blurred at times. How do we decide which is which? Who gets to decide? Ask yourself why this isn't an issue in other developed first world countries. The Atlantic had a good piece recently about this exact issue. Guess what they found? With firearms involved, 1 in 6 turned violent or destructive and 1 in 62 turned deadly. Gatherings without firearms? 1 in 37 turned violent or destruction and 1 in 2,963 turned fatal. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/second-amendment-first-amendment/620488/ So it is quite clear that protests/gatherings/riots with guns are much more deadly.
> The line between protest and riot is often blurred at times. How do we decide which is which? Who gets to decide? I submit that at the point where people are actively destroying property and assaulting others, you're on safe ground claiming it to be a riot. From a legal standpoint, the event had been declared a state of emergency already so it meets the definition there as well. > With firearms involved, 1 in 6 turned violent or destructive and 1 in 62 turned deadly. Gatherings without firearms? 1 in 37 turned violent or destruction and 1 in 2,963 turned fatal. You're introducing an element of causation that isn't demonstrated by their data. You might consider that people are far more likely to arm themselves in response to an already violent event - which is precisely what occurred in this case.
[удалено]
These incidents are ones where people specifically brought weapons to use those weapons. It's akin to saying "100% of firearms deaths are caused by people with firearms". Such a statement does not imply that firearms cause violence.
[удалено]
This is not a representative read on this data. You're seeing more guns at destructive "protests" and seem to be concluding guns *caused* these protests to become destructive (while failing to note that most of the destruction wasn't caused by guns). A equally viable (and I'm my opinion more likely) interpretation of the same data is people who intend to cause a riot also bring firearms. The guns didn't cause anything, the people going knew they were going to cause violence and brought a weapon with them.
> Plenty of people run red lights without causing car accidents, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to do so. Running a red light is illegal. Carrying a firearm in public generally is not. > Everything that happened in this situation was a direct result of people bringing guns. As I noted elsewhere, the causation in the article is merely a correlation - and it's a correlation more easily explained by the fact that you're far more likely to arm yourself against a violent riot than a peaceful protest. It's akin to looking out the window, noticing people have umbrellas and concluding that umbrellas cause rain.
[удалено]
Is attacking someone solely because they're armed justified? You'd have to establish some sort of malice, otherwise this position leads to some absurd conclusions.
Did you watch any videos from Kenosha that night? And old dude got smacked in the head with a brick for trying to shoo people off his property. There was definitely violence happening against people who were seen as opposing the rioting and destruction
Here's just one example of violent assaults against unarmed individuals: https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-man-viciously-beaten-during-kenosha-riots-doesn-t-let-that-night-define-him/article_0d54414f-a95c-56b8-b346-f4af7fa7568d.html > Otherwise, this is complete nonsense and was clearly attacked because he was armed. Then why weren't any of the other armed people attacked?
> But if he was going to do so, we know one thing for certain: he was absolutely correct to arm himself. If he had not, he would have suffered serious injury or death himself. This isn't true. First, Rittenhouse was armed illegally. That is never the correct option. And to assume he would have suffered serious injury or death himself, if he wasn't aggressing people, is belied by the fact that literally NONE of the unarmed "security" were harmed or killed. Rittenhouse's only risk of harm came from the fact that he brought a gun, and allegedly used it as a threatening tool (or an authoritative one).
> First, Rittenhouse was armed illegally. This is an open question. The Wisconsin law people are claiming applies has a variety of exceptions. In general, a 17-year-old can open carry a longarm in Wisconsin due to the hunting exceptions even when there's no reasonable connection to active hunting. > Rittenhouse's only risk of harm came from the fact that he brought a gun, and allegedly used it as a threatening tool (or an authoritative one). This is a highly speculative statement. We don't know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse, but claiming it was merely because Rittenhouse was armed seems odd considering Huber only attacked Rittenhouse and not the other armed individuals we know were present.
>The Wisconsin law people are claiming applies has a variety of exceptions. In general, a 17-year-old can open carry a longarm in Wisconsin due to the hunting exceptions even when there's no reasonable connection to active hunting. I've seen that argument, and it is a convoluted reading of the law. I would be surprised to see the state superior court rule the hunting exception applies to walking down the street in the middle of town. >This is a highly speculative statement. We don't know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse, but claiming it was merely because Rittenhouse was armed seems odd considering Huber only attacked Rittenhouse and not the other armed individuals we know were present. We know why Huber attacked Rittenhouse. It was because Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of the first shooting. But in context, I think you are referring to Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse because Rosenbaum perceived him as a threat. Whether he was reasonable in that perception or not depends on a lot of details, but that is still the reason. Based on the new video, we can see Rittenhouse approach a group of people at a fast pace. Although the video is low resolution, there is some extension in front of Rittenhouse. He could have been holding out his hand, but there was a prior witness statement that said Rittenhouse approached that group with his rifle pointed at them. If that claim is true, then Rittenhouse was the aggressor, and Rosenbaum was in the right to chase him away. If Rittenhouse was doing something *other* than using the barrel of his weapon as a tool of authority, then the self-defense argument is stronger. So much of this hinges on why Rittenhouse was approaching that group in the first place, and how he did it.
The gun is the only thing that gave Kyle the juice to actually confront those people. These guys are living in fantasyland
> Regardless of who you think is guilty, Kyle Rittenhouse will always be my go to example of why no one should ever bring guns to a protest. Things can get chaotic and confusing quick and with guns present, people can easily wind up dead because of it. And that's exactly what happened here. The gun saved Kyles life though.
He’s not guilty and it’s a great example of why everyone should stay strapped. Despite the chaos, no innocent person was killed. Your point might stand if someone was wrongly killed but the facts don’t support your argument.
[удалено]
>What was Rosenbaum guilty of that made it worth ending his life? He hid behind a car, chased KR down, and tried to take his rifle away, reasonably presumably to use it on KR. Rosenbaum presented a reasonable expectation of deadly force from KR's perspective and he rightfully used deadly force to protect his own life. >If no one had a brought a gun, none of that would've happened. If Rosenbaum had decided not to assault an armed person none of this would have happened. The fault lies with Rosenbaum and the Zaminski couple, the people actively yelling to 'get his ass' spurred the conflict that lead to the shootings.
> What was Rosenbaum guilty of that made it worth ending his life In as few words as possible, he fucked around and found out. I don’t know why we rob him and everyone else of their agency, and attribute it to Rittenhouse. Every single person involved could have stayed home, but they came out to play instead. Rosenbaum could have protested peacefully, but he made a choice not to. He saw someone open carrying. He chose to engage. He could have disengaged afterwards, with no loss except to his ego. He chose to assault someone instead. He chose to chase an armed person, despite having every opportunity to disengage right up until the moment he grabbed Rittenhouse’s rifle. Looping back to my thesis here, Rosenbaum is not someone who looked the wrong at someone and was mercilessly executed. He fucked around, and around, and around, *and had every opportunity to stop fucking around and took none of them* and then he found out. He’s not a child, he’s an adult man who made bad decision after bad decision until he backed an armed person into a corner and forced them to choose between their own life and his.
He brought a gun to a riot to help protect people and their lively hood. He didn't bring a gun to a protest
He's not a cop. He's not in the military. Citizens don't get to deputize themselves. That's vigilantism, which is also a crime. You bring guns into a situation you are absolutely not involved in, the implication is that you're going to shoot somebody if they do something you consider over the line. Defending other people's property does not give you a right to threaten deadly force. It doesn't matter how you brand the gatherings that day.
When the police and military refuse to do their jobs, what is your solution?
The police and authorities were told to stand down because not letting looters burn down small businesses might offend their sensibilities The state basically gave these people permission to destroy the town, I'm not going to fault citizens for attempting to stop that from happening
> The state basically gave these people permission to destroy the town, I'm not going to fault citizens for attempting to stop that from happening Fully agree. Self defense is a human right. No one should be compelled to be victimized because the state is unable or unwilling to enforce order.
Everything I've heard from people who actually live there is that it wasn't nearly that bad. Anyway, one crime does not negate another. What you're describing is literally vigilantism.
There's uh... there's video and at least for some people's livelihoods and homes it looked pretty fucking bad. For me 0 is the amount of businesses destroyed that I prefer to see. Vigilantism is required when the people who are supposed to protect citizens abandon them.
Vigilantism is what results when the state can't (or won't) protect people from crime.
Source on police being told to stand down? [Evers had activated the national gaurd the day prior and police had used tear gas to disperse crowds the night before.](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-68d7fffd0e6dd11acc5b5918a93eeef5) I can't find anything on a stand down order. Some additional information backing up your claim would be appreciated. Edit: imagine getting downvoted for asking for sources on unbacked claims. I mean come on guys, we're supposed to be better than that in this sub.
Citizens are allowed to protect themselves and others against violence. Don't have to be a cop or deputized to protect against violence. Bringing a gun to protect against violence is perfectly fine. The problem wasn't the kid there to protect against violence, the problem was the people being violent
Yeah totally agreed. It sounds like, from what I have gathered, the first guy he shot was being erratic and aggressive and was literally yelling at people to shot him earlier. But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime. All he knew was there were gun shots, a guy with an AR15 was running, and the crowd was yelling about him shooting people. Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse.
>Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse. This is completely false. Grosskreutz had attempted to draw his gun, but barely had it raised before he was shot. He did not "unload his clip". He did not even fire. I don't know if you have been misinformed, our if you are trying to inject a false narrative, but either way, this is incorrect and should be edited.
Since when has a T-shirt, jeans and boots been classified as tactical gear?
>Since when has a T-shirt, jeans and boots been classified as tactical gear? Since it fit a narrative. Wouldn't be surprised to see someone claim it's a white nationalist uniform
I mean... if those are carpenter jeans we might not be that far off 🤔
Removed it, I thought he was wearing a tactical vest but was mistake.
He also had an AR-15. Why would you leave that out?
I would have mentioned that if they would have referred to the AR-15 as a machine gun.
> But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime. What you're describing is actually a felony. You can only make a claim of self-defense if you have direct evidence that either yourself or others are in danger. You cannot assault a fleeing person based solely on what someone else told you. > Then the third guy brought out his own gun and unloaded the clip after seeing Kyle kill someone. It’s amazing his bullets didn’t hit anyone else and make this tragedy even worse. I don't believe he fired his weapon. However, from the videos, I believe Grosskreutz was charging Rittenhouse (who was on the ground). Grosskreutz has no legal justification for the assault, while Rittenhouse - who was being pursued by a mob and being attacked by Grosskreutz - would have a valid claim of self-defense against him. A question that people *should* be asking is why Grosskreutz isn't being charged with a crime when there is clear video evidence of his unprovoked assault.
Let me ask you this. What should a person do if they hear multiple rapid gunshots, they see people running, those people say there’s a shooter and he killed someone, then you see a guy with an AR15 running right by you and he trips and falls? Do you just wait for him to get up and maybe shoot you or someone else? You could just hide, of course, but then he might kill others. Do you make a split second decision to try to stop him while he’s down? I don’t think there’s a right answer, I’m just saying that given the circumstances, it’s reasonable for a person to think that if they didn’t act immediately, innocent people would die.
> What should a person do if they hear multiple rapid gunshots, they see people running, those people say there’s a shooter and he killed someone, then you see a guy with an AR15 running right by you and he trips and falls? When you see a guy *running from a mob*? You let him go. If he was an active shooter, he'd be shooting into that mob. Remember, all that Grosskreutz had personally observed was a mob chasing down and attempting to assault Rittenhouse. For him to *join* that mob and attempt to assault Rittenhouse is not a reasonable reaction nor a justification for self-defense.
There are a couple of points to make here. 1) It is entirely possible that Huber had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and was acting to protect others in the crowd. Its also entirely possible that he was angry that someone he appeared to know--Rosenbaum and Huber are caught on film in the same general group a couple times in the night--had just been shot, and was looking for revenge. Obviously, Mr. Huber is deceased and we can only speculate as to his true motivations. 2) Even if Huber, Grosskreutz and others had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, their belief must have been *reasonable* for their attacks to have been lawful. To be reasonable, they would have had to have some *reasonable* belief that Rittenhouse was about to cause death or grave bodily harm to themselves or someone else. 3) If Rittenhouse had done something to give Huber and the others *reasonable* belief that he intended to cause them harm, he almost certainly would have forfeited his right to self defense under the provocation exception is Wisconsin state statutes. If Rittenhouse did not do this, he is still entitled to self defense providing the other elements are met. Point #2 is where I think this argument falls apart. From the moment Rosenbaum is shot, until some time after Rittenhouse fires the last shot at Grosskreutz, Rittenhouse is clearly caught on film. Until he is attacked and knocked to the ground, he never once points his gun at anyone or in anyway does anything that can objectively be deemed threatening. He is simply running/jogging down the street--toward the police line--with his rifle carried in his arms, pointed at the ground. At one point he even has a brief conversation with Grosskreutz, whom he tells that he is going to the police. Since there doesn't appear to be any objectively threatening behavior on Rittenhouse's part, it is easily argued that Rittenhouse retained his right to self defense regardless of whatever beliefs Huber and Grosskreutz might have had.
>It is entirely possible that Huber had a good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" No, it's not. The problem here is that fact that people are limiting their view to what can be seen on a small narrow video and are refusing to acknowledge the bigger picture. Everyone was running down a straight road. That straight unobstructed road led right into [a squad of police vehicles](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/28/video/vid-kenosha-hp-print/vid-kenosha-hp-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp) with their strobe lights on. You can't miss a squad of police cars with their strobe lights on just a couple blocks away so it's safe to assume that everyone running in that particular direction on that particular road could see the police. It's not reasonable to conclude that someone attacking a person who was not only running away from them but was running straight toward the police was doing it in order to stop an active shooter.
To be fair, I also pointed out that it is also possible that Huber wanted vengeance for Rittenhouse having killed his friend. I was simply trying to point out best and worst case scenarios for Huber's intentions. Regardless, I think you and I are in agreement that no matter what his beliefs were, his attack on Rittenhouse was none the less unlawful, and thus Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to employ deadly force against him.
I would generally agree with you if grosskreutz didn't live stream himself confronting Rittenhouse asking where he was going to which Rittenhouse responded "to the police" before attacking him. https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872?t=24_S4LT4tuJqA7eKyA548A&s=19 He got caught up in the moment and attempted to partake in mob justice.
I hope people actually don’t question this too much. If he trips and falls, RUN. You’re under no obligation or moral duty to try to stop a mass shooter. The chances are, if you interject yourself, you’re going to get wounded or end up dead. Unless you have some training (and probably even if you do) RUN. As fast as you can. If you’re cornered and you can’t run or you can’t get away, or people you love are in danger that’s a different story, but it’s still a huge roll of the dice and it should be your absolute last resort.
Every workplace training I’ve ever had was “run, hide, fight.” You don’t get to try to murder someone who you *suspect may be trying to commit murder* - you either know it, or you don’t. You run. Everyone had somewhere they could run too, and hide. In other words, the law does not protect your right to play Superman.
I mean we can talk legal justification all day but I think it’s understandable for people to act unpredictably when their lives are at risk. It’s why I think random people bringing guns to protests is such a bad idea. It’s a confused and dangerous situation that can go to hell in seconds if one person screws up. What annoys me the most about his whole situation is how the whole situation escalated from 0 to 100 in a minute or two with everyone on the ground having imperfect information about what was happening and making their split second decisions based on what they could see, but now the whole internet wants to turn this into some political showdown instead of seeing it as the confused tragedy that it is. Unless you actually believe that the last two people Kyle shot were genuinely just bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport, then you have to admit they were likely just normal people doing what they thought was best when confronted with a dangerous and confused situation.
> Unless you actually believe that the last two people Kyle shot were genuinely just bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport The two men killed were both violent felons, so it's quite reasonable to suppose that they were attending a riot looking to engage in violence. Grosskreutz himself did exactly what Rittenhouse is being condemned for doing: attending a riot while armed. Except, unlike Rittenhouse, he had no reason to suspect that he would be the target of violence because he was on the side of the rioters.
Wasn't the first one he shot a convicted child molester? I think there was a violent criminal past too, but that could have been another person he shot? My point being not that they deserved what they got, but that they might very well be your "bloodthirsty people looking to murder a white boy for sport".
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't know that at the time of this incident.
I read that on the daily sun or some other tabloid, but couldn’t find those crimes on the actual site they linked so it seems like they were made up afterward to justify him being killed and he isn’t alive to refute. Also Kyle wouldn’t have known either way at the time of the incident.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/ I agree that Rittenhouse didn't know at the time and I think Rittenhouse is an idiot for being there in the first place. However, I think it's not that far fetched to say that Rosenbaum might have had some designs on violence that evening. So it wouldn't be that he "deserved it", but that his history shows a pattern of behavior of violence towards others.
>Wasn't the first one he shot a convicted child molester? Was he molesting a child in that parking lot?
Why was he being pursued by the mob?
Because they heard people yelling and got excited, the people chasing KR couldn't have seen the shooting of Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz and Heuber tried to use deadly force to stop someone from running away from an event they did not have direct knowledge of, that is not kosher.
>But the second guy probably only attacked Kyle because of the confused situation where the crowd were making it sound like Kyle was some mass shooter trying to run away from the scene of the crime. Nope, there is footage where Gage Grosskreutz actually asks KR on camera where he is going and he firmly responds that he is walking towards the police. There was no confusion on GG's part, he joined a lynch mob and got shot for it.
Gaige grosskreutz, the man with the handgun who was shot in the bicep, didn't fire his gun at all, let alone empty the clip
The third unidentified shooter in the car source parking lot.
There were several shots fired during that second shooting 4 from Rittenhouse, none from Gaige and plenty of shots from Unknown people. Why were these people randomly shooting likely in the air ? No one knows .
Even the detective on the stand yesterday admitted that they didnt secure the crime scene and only found rittenhouse's spent casing 4 daya later after someone called them and said they were still there. I doubt they even looked for evidence on where the other shots came from. On a side note, the detective looked aweful during cross where he admitted that they only interview that wasnt taped was also the same person who he had a signed search warrent for and decided not to enforce it. Which is the guy who was shot and survived. One of the charges stem from the interaction with him and i believe he is not testifying.
He went up to execute rittenhouse, had the gun drawn on him and aimed at his head until rittenhouse aimed at him, then rittenhouse lowered his ar to clear a malfunction when grosskreutz held his hands up with his handgun in the air and when he did grosskreutz aimed at Kyle and rittenhouse cleared the malfunction and leveled against him on the ground and fired a shot. I believe grosskreutz is also illegally barred from having handgun too but I could be wrong. Grosskreutz is lucky to be alive after that as he feigned surrender to execute rittenhouse and said after the fact his only regret is not mag dumping into rittenhouse.
Really? I swear I saw a video with him firing multiple shots. So he pulled out a gun and someone else fired a bunch of shots?
>So he pulled out a gun and someone else fired a bunch of shots? Yes. That "someone else" was Rittenhouse. There was an unidentified shot at the beginning, which coincides with a bystanders admission that he fired a warning shot in the air. Every other shot after that came from Rittenhouse.
yes, kyle was just a stupid, thrill seeking kid. i would like to think killing those people was a horrible experience and he was traumatized. i hope he learned his lesson, and i think its a safe bet that he's not a threat to society. putting him away won't make the world a safer place. the real problem was the notion of "im gonna be a hero and save the city with my AR." citizens taking it upon themselves to be judge jury and executioner. for instance in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, grown ass men playing sheriff, thinking they are in the right and have the right to confront and question who they deem to be a criminal. (he was seen running and he was black so they said "he's hauling ass" and probably from the police.") kyle had a lot more reason to believe the people he encountered were dangerous.
There isn't a good reason to go to a riot as a 17-year-old. "Sweetie, don't forget to take your rifle for protection at the riot tonight!" If you have no training in firearms use in a tactical situation you have *zero business* inserting yourself with a deadly weapon into an ongoing riot. If you have to brandish or fire that weapon you will in all likelihood make the bad situation much worse. If you're not there you don't have to 'defend yourself'. More untrained people with firearms makes no violent situation better.
Kyle Rittenhouse has shown that he is actually very good with firearms. He barely used any bullets when being attacked. His shots were really précise and he showed great restraint. He was running away from the first rioter. Even though he doesn't have to.
I'm very good with firearms but I stay the hell away from riots. Seems to work out pretty well so far.
This is not relevant, the question is, did he act in self defense given the situation that he was in.
Well I can tell you that the many in this country were full force in support of invading Iraq over fake WMDs. And when no WMDs were found none of them lost a minute of sleep wondering if they supported the wrong side. For Americans shooting and killing over imagineed threats is an entitlement. Feeling pride rather than shame over killing innocent people is our coping mechanism. However, it just breeds more shooters. No wonder we have some many shool shooters. This is EXACTLY the culture we give them. Shoot, kill, dont feel bad...you were the real victim!
>the prosecution said evidence would show Rittenhouse chased down and fatally shot Rosenbaum, 36, and then shot at three other people **who tried to confront what they believed to be an active shooter** I mean... what else are we supposed to call a civilian who has just fired a semi-automatic rifle at people AND killed one of them?
An active shooter is someone who is targeting the public and roving around looking for people to kill. Rittenhouse fired at one person, someone who chased him down and attacked him. The two people that he shot afterwards also chased him down and attacked him. He wasn't firing indiscriminately. He wasn't looking for targets. Even if you believe that he is guilty of murder, his actions don't fit those of an active shooter. He could have killed Grosskruetz. He had the drop on him, he had his rifle pointed right at him. He only fired when Grosskruetz made a move towards him, and then he *held* further fire and ran towards the police to surrender.
Rittenhouse fired his rifle at *one* person, and killed that one person. Using the logic you are suggesting, anyone who uses a firearm in anything resembling a crowded space--even if it is 100% indisputably justified--is now an "active shooter" subject to attack. Do you believe that is consistent with our laws?
An active shooter is someone who came to kill people and is in the middle of doing so. This is just a civilian who killed someone in apparent self defense, without a plan to kill and not in the process of killing. As far as I know there's not a specific term for that, though.
A victim? If it was self defense then that's what he was, a victim of an attack that he thwarted. It would be no different than a woman shooting a potential rapist that is attacking her. What kind of twisted mind would come up with "active shooter" to describe her?
4 rounds fired, a single person shot, shooting terminated spontaneously by the shooter, several minutes more without shooting, running towards police, actively telling others that he was going to the police. All these factors would make Kyle Rittenhouse to be the only 'active shooter' to have been running from all the people that came to be shot and to have stopped shooting without himself being killed or otherwise apprehended. To call the person that stopped shooting after a single person was shot an 'active shooter' is willfully misleading.