Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
Donald H said:
It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

I would strongly disagree with saying "two people were murdered" based on the evidence I have seen. The cellphone video that shows the shooting, shows Rittenhouse clearly running away from/fleeing a number of people. He falls to the ground -- it is impossible to tell from the video whether he tripped on his own or if he was struck in the head and knocked down (I've read both). He is then rushed by several individuals who try to rip the AR away from him. He fires to prevent that and defend himself. One of the three people he shot was carrying a handgun.

I gave seen Donut Operator linked here before and as a result have watched some of his videos. He seems fair and level-headed and gives an analysis of several angles: https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4

That seems very clearly self defence to me. Failing to allow yourself to be disarmed and murdered with your own weapon does not make one a murderer in my view.

Whether or not it was wise or prudent for him to be there in the first place is another question. The fact is, he attempted to withdraw from the situation. The rioters would not let him and they chased him down and attacked him. He defended himself.

Why do you say he is mentally ill?

Whether he was mentally ill or not, the video seems to demonstrate a clear self defence case in my view.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
Donald H said:
It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

I just watched a video of part of that incident. The kid is running away up a street and he's being chased by a crowd. Someone runs up behind him and swings a punch to his head (misses). It looks like he's knocked down or trips, turns on the ground and shoots someone bearing down on him. Looks like self-defense to me (given the same circumstances I would have shot too and I bet 99% of this forum as well).
Someone then unsuccessfully tries to get the gun away from him (after looking like he gave him a drop kick to the head). Guy who tried to get the gun away either tries to run past the kid on the ground or circle around to the side of him and gets shot for it. Guy who was just shot backed away and so did someone else with their hands up. Kid doesn't shoot them, gets up and starts walking away.

At least one of those people were shot in self defense.

It's chaotic, shits on fire, people are running around screaming. Kind of seems like you're fixating on "ar15" repeatedly.

Part of the riot video also includes a guy getting his face or head smashed in for the crime of using a fire extinguisher to put out a fire someone started at his business.
Another part shows a cop getting knocked out after taking a break to the head too.


 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
278
Points
830
He had just shot someone else in the head.  The crowd were trying to disarm him.  He has zero claim to self defence.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
dapaterson said:
He had just shot someone else in the head.  The crowd were trying to disarm him.  He has zero claim to self defence.

For shooting someone in the head? I'm not sure I didn't see that video. If one of the people killed was from the video I seen where he's sitting on the ground and having a crowd bare down on him I think a lawyer could argue he felt a credible threat to his own life and acted in self-defense. There's enough videos of unarmed people out there getting their heads stomped in from  crowds during these riots. Or pulled from their vehicles while trying to pass etc..


 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
61
Points
630
Saw this in Canadian gun politics,

dapaterson said:
He had just shot someone else in the head.  The crowd were trying to disarm him.  He has zero claim to self defence.

More on the topic,

Vigilante, volunteer, terrorist: how the US media covers Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/vigilante-volunteer-terrorist-how-us-media-covers-kyle-rittenhouse




 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
>He had just shot someone else in the head.

What happened to the first victim is unclear (to me) because no videos have emerged (so far) of the shooting.  Apparently the victim was shot 5 times, had thrown something at the shooter (a plastic bag containing ???), and was chasing or attempting to disarm the shooter.  Whether it can be spun as self-defence depends on what witnesses report.

The second and third shootings look (available video) more like self-defence.  I doubt a claim to self-defence vanishes because a crime has been committed, as if more vigilantism is righteous in response to an act of vigilantism.

Just one foolish decision after another, as are most chains of events leading to accidents and accidental tragedies.
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
LittleBlackDevil said:
I would strongly disagree with saying "two people were murdered" based on the evidence I have seen. The cellphone video that shows the shooting, shows Rittenhouse clearly running away from/fleeing a number of people. He falls to the ground -- it is impossible to tell from the video whether he tripped on his own or if he was struck in the head and knocked down (I've read both). He is then rushed by several individuals who try to rip the AR away from him. He fires to prevent that and defend himself. One of the three people he shot was carrying a handgun.

I gave seen Donut Operator linked here before and as a result have watched some of his videos. He seems fair and level-headed and gives an analysis of several angles: https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4

That seems very clearly self defence to me. Failing to allow yourself to be disarmed and murdered with your own weapon does not make one a murderer in my view.

Whether or not it was wise or prudent for him to be there in the first place is another question. The fact is, he attempted to withdraw from the situation. The rioters would not let him and they chased him down and attacked him. He defended himself.

Why do you say he is mentally ill?

Whether he was mentally ill or not, the video seems to demonstrate a clear self defence case in my view.

Thanks for saying that LBD and I agree with you.

New footage shows the kid is in self-defence mode. The first guy to pass away hit him on the head with his skateboard and the kid shot him after that. The second guy had a pistol but didn't immediately shoot. He later said to a friend in hospital, I wish I shot him and empty the magazine into him. Its on Twitter. The third guy I didn't search.

From the NYT:

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings
Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin.

We tracked his movements that night.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html?searchResultPosition=1


Here is some twitter posts – expands on the NYT article

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298833015548739587

https://twitter.com/i/status/1298857915202314240

https://twitter.com/RobGeorge/status/1298858352538267648


Apparently, some hi-priced lawyer is going to work pro bono for the kid.

Edit: My bad. The order of pppl killed I mentioned is out-of-order
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
Im surprised more "protestors" aren't being shot to be honest.

Portland protesters beat driver unconscious after crashing truck near Black Lives Matter rally
Witnesses told police the man had been helping a transgender female who had an item of hers stolen, and he was dragged out of the car and beaten by nine or 10 people.

https://youtu.be/60cqUPxYThY
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
154
Points
680
dapaterson said:
He had just shot someone else in the head.  The crowd were trying to disarm him.  He has zero claim to self defence.

You know that I'm neither an apologist for Antifa nor for right wing militias. There are several videos out of what was happening although those are still open to interpretation and I expect more are yet to come. The ones that I've seen show Rittenhouse being chased, having what appears to be an incendiary thrown at him and perhaps trapped between some cars before shooting Rosenbaum (the first victim). Subsequent videos show him as walking then running down the street trying to get away from the "crowd" and head towards a lit intersection when he is repeatedly being chased down by people trying to hit him.

I think that a conclusion that the "crowd was trying to disarm him" is ignoring the facts of the circumstances surrounding the situation.

If you listen to the tapes, there are numerous other gun shots in the background not coming from Rittenhouse. The scene was nothing short of chaotic and I would think that Rittenhouse can very easily make the argument that in the circumstances that we can all see here, he was in fear of his life. It would even appear from one video that at the time of the second shooting, Rittenhouse had fallen, was stomped on by one individual, hit with a skateboard by the the second person that he shot (Huber) and that the third individual (Grosskreutz who was shot in the arm) had drawn a handgun.

IMHO Rittenhouse was stupid for being there, probably is in breach of some gun regulations due to his age, but "zero claim for self defence" - hardly. He has valid arguments to bring regarding self-defence on the last two shootings for sure and probably even on the first shooting. Time will tell.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Iy9epcyVM32T/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bkJ535vvjVWk/
https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/alleged-kenosha-shooters-lawyer-claims-self-defense-amid-new-video/

:worms:
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
So.

1. Don't chase someone who has a firearm, particularly if he looks like he's scared (retreating rapidly).

2. Don't stand anywhere near people who provoke someone else who has a firearm; random shots carry the same energy as aimed shots.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
Pressure is on. If he's found not guilty it's more fuel for protestors to act like animals.

Interesting how 3 people shot with an AR is national news in the US but 94 people have been shot in Chicago this week and its crickets.

Neither here nor there but that second guy shot had a hell of a criminal record.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
288
Points
830
FJAG said:
You know that I'm neither an apologist for Antifa nor for right wing militias. There are several videos out of what was happening although those are still open to interpretation and I expect more are yet to come. The ones that I've seen show Rittenhouse being chased, having what appears to be an incendiary thrown at him and perhaps trapped between some cars before shooting Rosenbaum (the first victim). Subsequent videos show him as walking then running down the street trying to get away from the "crowd" and head towards a lit intersection when he is repeatedly being chased down by people trying to hit him.

I think that a conclusion that the "crowd was trying to disarm him" is ignoring the facts of the circumstances surrounding the situation.

If you listen to the tapes, there are numerous other gun shots in the background not coming from Rittenhouse. The scene was nothing short of chaotic and I would think that Rittenhouse can very easily make the argument that in the circumstances that we can all see here, he was in fear of his life. It would even appear from one video that at the time of the second shooting, Rittenhouse had fallen, was stomped on by one individual, hit with a skateboard by the the second person that he shot (Huber) and that the third individual (Grosskreutz who was shot in the arm) had drawn a handgun.

IMHO Rittenhouse was stupid for being there, probably is in breach of some gun regulations due to his age, but "zero claim for self defence" - hardly. He has valid arguments to bring regarding self-defence on the last two shootings for sure and probably even on the first shooting. Time will tell.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Iy9epcyVM32T/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bkJ535vvjVWk/
https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/alleged-kenosha-shooters-lawyer-claims-self-defense-amid-new-video/

:worms:

I’m largely in agreement, with the caveat that what happened before the first shooting is as yet unknown, and critically important for the legal reckoning of the subsequent chain of events. Had he does something clearly illegal that others were trying to stop and citizen’s arrest him for? Or as he unprovokedly attacked? It will make a big difference.

That aside, the kid was an absolute idiot for putting himself in that situation and, if I understand correctly, was committing offences in being a minor in possession of a weapon. I don’t believe he had truly benign intentions, I think he was a testosterone-poisoned 17 year old who wanted to go out LARPing as a militia wannabe to feel cool, and got in over his head. Everything that happened was avoidable and regrettable. Those who confronted him are idiots too. Or were, in two cases.

Also, generally, America is effing insane.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
NBC has a different take.
Good Samaritans gunned down while trying to valiantly disarm a teenager on a "shooting rampage".  Quite the different perspective.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/crime/two-men-killed-at-jacob-blake-protest-identified-by-authorities/ar-BB18tBgP?li=AAggFp5
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
>Had he does something clearly illegal that others were trying to stop and citizen’s arrest him for?

I haven't seen anything that suggests anyone was trying to arrest him (certainly not peacefully).  To me it looks like - ironically - they were playing vigilante also, in the best traditions of mob vigilantism (seize and beat, and who knows what else).

From the pictures online, the shooter doesn't look like a high-T guy.  And not merely foolish for what he did, but foolish for (apparently) not checking whether he could legitimately carry a firearm in another state.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
154
Points
680
Brihard said:
I’m largely in agreement, with the caveat that what happened before the first shooting is as yet unknown, and critically important for the legal reckoning of the subsequent chain of events. Had he does something clearly illegal that others were trying to stop and citizen’s arrest him for? Or as he unprovokedly attacked? It will make a big difference.

That aside, the kid was an absolute idiot for putting himself in that situation and, if I understand correctly, was committing offences in being a minor in possession of a weapon. I don’t believe he had truly benign intentions, I think he was a testosterone-poisoned 17 year old who wanted to go out LARPing as a militia wannabe to feel cool, and got in over his head. Everything that happened was avoidable and regrettable. Those who confronted him are idiots too. Or were, in two cases.

Also, generally, America is effing insane.

Agree a hundred percent.

I don't really see this crowd having enough wits about them to effectively do anything about him that could remotely be called a citizen's arrest (I looked. Wisconsin has no statute on citizen's arrest, it's a common law concept see here. He was retreating. To be a baying mob trying to run down someone who has an assault rifle and who has just shot someone is the height of stupidity, IMHO.

Note that in Wisconsin:
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1)(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself ...
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c)
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

Note that the clear question in the first shooting is whether or not Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief in being harmed and whether he provoked the first victim. From what I saw in one of the videos, the first victim was acting aggressively. Whether or not that ever went to the point that Rittenhouse felt genuinely threatened, is the open issue. In the second situation it was quite clear that Rittenhouse was withdrawing but being attacked and confronted so only reasonable belief of harm plays the key role here.

At the moment we're all spitting into the dark here with only enough information to make poorly educated guesses. Can hardly wait for all the self-proclaimed experts to make the rounds on the news entertainment channels. This will take a while to play out but, quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing a jury come back with a unanimous verdict in that culture.

For the life of me I still can't see how the US Supreme Court ever came back in District of Columbia v Heller that the 2nd Amendment applied to everyone and their dog and not just "a well regulated militia" but there it is. Take note that an individual between the age of 17 and 35 is entitled to enlist in the Wisconsin or Illinois National Guard. Anyone want to lay a bet as to whether or not the defence will argue that if a 17 year-old is entitled to bear arms in the National Guard then he can legitimately be a member of a citizen's militia and therefore the under 18 provisions are contrary to the 2nd Amendment and he was legally allowed to walk the streets armed to defend the country against insurrection? Anyone?

:worms:
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
288
Points
830
FJAG said:
Anyone want to lay a bet as to whether or not the defence will argue that if a 17 year-old is entitled to bear arms in the National Guard then he can legitimately be a member of a citizen's militia and therefore the under 18 provisions are contrary to the 2nd Amendment and he was legally allowed to walk the streets armed to defend the country against insurrection? Anyone?

:worms:

What are you, a lawyer or something?
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
95
Points
530
The only "positive" from this is that the kid wasn't properly trained or there could have been absolute carnage on that street.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
89
Points
630
Interesting discussion.  I watched the full video, the entire area looked like absolute anarchy.  This teenager should not have been there but don't attack someone holding a gun and not expect retaliation.  I wonder what was going through those morons heads when they decided to pursue that COA?
 
Top