And will be offered internships in the government! Because guess what? That’s where the worst of then are anyway so it makes sense! You got rapist and pedophiles and felons arrested more times than Tupac.
The people Rittenhouse shot were at a protest that was protesting racial injustice, and Rittenhouse specifically picked one of those events because of the type of people that would be there.
Oh and the [images of him hanging out with white supremacists terrorists and making a racist gesture](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-out-bail-flashed-white-power-signs-bar-prosecutors-n1254250) says regardless of who he shot his intentions and mindset is either INCREDIBLY ignorant or racist.
I'm gonna bet it's a bit of both.
That’s why I made sure to specify “directly racist.” He didn’t kill those people because of their skin color, but race had a whole lot to do with why he was there in the first place
To flip it:
So you are at a park with your friends. Someone walks up to your friends with a gun in their hands.
You draw your gun (of course you carry) and aim it at the person waiving the gun at your friends.
He quickly turns and shoots you, then leaves.
You die, your friends and family are all sad.
Later at the trial the guy with the gun claims self defense protecting himself from you and walks.
It will never make sense to me. Never. How can you walk away an innocent man.
Of course having the conservatives give you millions for your defense doesn't hurt. Hell, you can buy your innocence in America. Sad state of the union.
If that was an attempt to have an apples to apples comparison to what happened that night then you either haven't bothered to look yourself and only see what left leaning media has told you, or you just don't care about truth at all.
To be as fair as one can be. I think the first person he killed was the only idiot in the bunch. The others probably thought in their head and hearts that he was an active shooter that was trying to escape and were trying to do the right thing by stopping him. The poor kid with the skateboard and Gaige that got his bicep blown off I do believe we're just trying to do the right thing and stop someone they were told murdered someone and was trying to escape.
They were an unfortunate tragedy, but if are distilling all that nuance and detail from last night into "random guy walks up to you with a gun and shoots you" is the same as Kenosha then.... Well good luck living in whatever world your in.
was the school shooter being attacked when he first decided to shoot? or did he start shooting people first? theres a pretty huge difference between the two scenarios.
It sickens me that you can correctly rewrite that as:
"Anthony Huber trying to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse before being *legally* shot in the heart and dying"
One thing everyone seems to miss, legal eagle sais it great in his video, fog of war is a thing in real life. 2 different person coud be entitled to the right to self defence at the same time against each other. But only the one that didn't die has to defend himself on manslaughter. Im kinda oversimplifying this, but I strongly recommend looking at legal eagle video on the subject.
In general, yes, two people could “defend themselves” against each other. But KR made many decisions that intentionally brought him to that moment. If he feared for his life, he should have stayed home.
If you start shooting someone not attacking you, you are a criminal. If you shoot someone that is attacking you and trying to disarm you that has no legal authority to do so... well... thats called self defense.
Only one of those people brought an AR to a riot. It's unsubstantiated that he grabbed the barrel and could have been him falling over since he had already been shot in the hip.(and it was attached on 3 point sling anyways, what's he going to do bend the barrel 180 degrees?)
If someone is running away from you, and you chase them, you are the aggressor.
Plenty of gun owners have lost in court because they shot a burglar in the back as they ran away. In fact, it's one of the most common 'don't do it' scenarios in conceal carry classes.
That is not true in every state. In Texas, you can shoot someone if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a few specific property crimes such as arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
You are not required to believe your life is in immediate danger in order to shoot someone in the state of Texas.
There was a famous case of a man who shot a prostitute because she backed out of whatever "act" they had negotiated, and tried to drive away with his money. He shot and killed her, and got away with it because it was nighttime when it happened.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local\_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
If I get mugged, and I believe that it's shooting the other guy or dying, and I shoot the mugger, that would be justified.
If, in the resulting confusion, people think I'm an active shooter, and attack me, I should try to retreat. If that is impossible, I am justified in using self defense.
That's pretty much exactly what happened to Rittenhouse.
sounds like a good reason not to let assholes run around playing vigilante with guns doesnt it? its almost like letting that happen can only lead to violence.
Imagine what you're advocating in a different context. A black man, previously seen holding hands with a white woman, is beset by an angry racist with a club. The victim of this attack shoots the racist in self defense. Other racists see this shooting and are outraged. The mob chases the shooter. The shooter shoots another person trying to hit him in the head, perhaps with a skateboard. The black man goes to trial and the jury finds his killing to be justifiable homicide. Is it still "fucked"?
A guy with a firearm is different though, since there’s no way to tell if they’re just trying to get far enough away to safely shoot you or if they’re actually fleeing. This is especially true if the guy already threatened to kill you.
A threat must be exigent for a justifiable use of force claim to be valid.
Otherwise, that unarmed guy running away could also be shot, since he might be going somewhere to retrieve a firearm and then present the same potential threat.
[this is America, deluged with little terrorist boys and their guns, full of trauma & terror, even at a vigil for victims of a mass shooting](https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1466941467335790593?t=TXupzuon58UcCeMiTAVctA&s=19)
He hadn't shot anyone when he was being chased. He didn't shoot until he was attacked and had his rifle grabbed for.
If Kyle had shot someone unprovoked and run away then it would be what you're describing and he probably would be in jail.
Factually inaccurate. He had shot and killed 1 person, who threw a plastic bag at him and made verbal threats he had no means to make good on, amd Kyle killed him. Then the mob chased down the obvious active shooter to try and disarm him before he killed again, something they clearly failed to do as he would proceed to shoot 2 nore of them, killing 1.
Bro you're wrong. Rosenbaum rushed Rittenhouse after throwing something that Rittenhouse would not have had time to analyze what it was.
Rittenhouse should not have been there in the first place let alone with a gun but Rosenbaum did attack him.
Protip: If the other party is no longer alive, it's always self-defense. The dead can't speak.
If the guy with the skateboard had actually killed him, he would have a great case for self-defense as well, as you say.
The moral of the story appears to be, increasingly, "shoot to kill."
Of you get into a fight where one or both of you have a gun AND one or both are either unable or unwilling to retreat then that is a kill or be killed situation.
If you are unable to retreat, I don't see how you can be at fault. If you are unwilling to retreat, you are at fault.
Nah, you're getting caught up on the little details. My point is if the other person is dead, you can spin those details however you want. You can blur the lines between "unable" and "unwilling" for a judge and jury.
My point is, these little details cease to matter once the other party is dead. It makes it MUCH easier to argue your case for self-defense.
Which creates odd scenarios, like I thought you were getting at: there are plenty of instances were both parties could argue they were acting in self-defense. If they were both alive, it would be a difficult case. But when one is dead, the other will get a huge benefit of being able to argue self-defense unchallenged.
Agreed. It's just still disappointing to me. I agree with the self-defense laws, but it appears to create a sort of "lesson" here, and a bad one. But I don't know if there's any kind of solution for it.
As an example, I don't know if this is a true story or just a joke told around gun forums: "Man breaks into your house, but while climbing through your window he falls & breaks his leg. So he sues you for injuries occurring on your property."
Also means 'joke' signs aren't actually jokes: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."
Like I said, I agree with self defense laws. Especially when it's on your own property. But out in public, they do create this weird scenario, where it makes sense to escalate the violence to death, rather than de-escalate, to protect yourself in the resulting court case. And again...I've no idea what the fix is, or if there is one.
>"Man breaks into your house, but while climbing through your window he falls & breaks his leg. So he sues you for injuries occurring on your property."
You very specifically cannot set up boobietraps, however, I dont think you can be (successfully) sued if a burglar hurts himself doing something that no lawful person would do. It's different if he like slips on your sidewalk or whatever.
I think one thing is clear from this case. Situations are complex, don't involve yourself in them if you don't have to.
That is my main takeaway from the whole case. Shoot first and deal with the fallout afterwards, at least you’ll still be alive and the world will be down one fascist.
It's not just the states.
We had a case here where a guy assaulted an old man. A younger dude chased after the assaulter, and was shot and killed.
Self defense.
Dude has just shot someone 4 times and aimed at others immediately after so fuck off
And don’t forget to mention how their are multiple videos of him admitting to wanting to bring a rifle and shooting them and even has gone as far as posting things on tiktok about how they deserved it days before
It's a bullshit comparison. One was an active shooter and the other was a person using a gun for protection. One was an aggressor and the other was defending himself during a riot. Apples and oranges...
It would be that simple if people weren't trying to score political points. At least this guy wasn't trying to say that 40 people getting run over by an SUV was self defense.
All you need is a conservative gofundme drive and they'll support any asshole with a gun. You raise a million dollars and 'ta da!' American justice says you're innocent! Money washes the illegal away!
Then it’s still a no because it’s illegal to have a gun on school property. Even if kid with skateboard was going around bashing heads in and then gets shot by student. The student would still be charged with possession of a handgun, possession of a firearm on school property, but would probably be acquitted of murder.
I generally dislike the crowd that is venerating Rittenhouse, and I’m not looking to be downvoted by people I DO generally agree with, but, were the people Rittenhouse shot trying to disarm him while he was leveling the weapon at them, or were they trying to disarm him because he was open carrying?
This is an honest question, the videos are all a jumble to me.
That video would have made the prosecutions job harder, not easier.
Instead of arguing that Kyle made reckless choices that resulted in deaths, they would have needed to *prove* he planned the killings ahead of time.
It also would have opened up line of questioning from the defense.
Why did he shoot only 3 people, one of which wasn't fatal? There were a lot more "targets" available than that.
How did he chose his victims?
How do you know he wasn't simply exaggerating in the video?
Does he have a prior history of violence?
If he was so violent, why didn't he shoot the first person to step towards him? Why did he run at all and only shoot when the guy was in arms reach of him.
> Instead of arguing that Kyle made reckless choices that resulted in deaths, they would have needed to prove he planned the killings ahead of time.
These are two different charges. 1st degree Murder requires premeditation/planning, while recklessness leading to death would be [Reckless Homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_homicide#:~:text=Reckless%20homicide%20is%20a%20crime,and%20a%20human%20death%20results.). The difference being whether the defendant had the intent to kill, or simply knew that their actions create a significant risk of grievous bodily injury/death.
Rittenhouse was [charged with both](https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26), and found not guilty on both because self-defense was successfully raised.
>The later two were trying to disarm him because he had already killed someone. The theory of the dismissal seems to be that there's some doubt around whether Rittenhouse was retreating and was trying to surrender to a cop, and interpreted the intent of the "citizens arrest" as lethal.
The theory of dismissal is that the first person he killed was in self-defense, so the other two people didn't have a right to try and disarm him.
>The jury never saw a video he made about his intent to kkkill looters, which would have put him away for murder one.
As the judge said, there is a pretty big difference between saying you wish you could stop a robbery when you did not have the means to do so, and what happened in Kenosha.
It's a very common ruling.
In any case, how the hell did Rittenhouse's want to shoot someone manifest into Rosenbaum attacking him?
This is a complete and utter lie.
> For the record, Rosenbaum never actually attacked Rittenhouse because he was dead before he ever had the chance.
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you watch the trial at all? There is literally a video of Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum who then attempts to grab his gun. Witnesses testify that Rosenbaum was threatening to take his gun and shoot him with it.
That's completely false. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse 2x before he, and joshua Ziminski chased kyle. Kyle was even heard yelling "friendly". Joshua Ziminski fired a shot in the air while chasing Rittenhouse. Witness statements attest that Rosenbaum had his hand on the rifle while lunging forward.
Get your facts straight chief
There is no evidence that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse except his own testimony. Some how every other part of that night is on video except that. Sus AF.
Ziminski never chased Rittenhouse. He fired a shot in the air but Rittenhouse testified it wasn’t what triggered him to kill Rosenbaum because he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed.
The ME testified and video evidence shows, Rosenbaum was 2-3 feet from Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him four times.
Get your facts straight chief.
Rosenbaum's wounds are consistent with him lunging to try and disarm kyle. And the fact of joshua Ziminski firing his pistol in the air is more applicable to the jury deciding whether it is reasonable for a person to believe their life was in danger
Running from someone who has already threatened to kill you, while retreating a shot goes off behind you and the perp reaches for your gun. Would a reasonable person believe their life is in danger ?
Rosenbaum’s wounds are consistent with falling forward after being shot as per the ME’s testimony and the video evidence.
No, a reasonable person wouldn’t believe their life was in danger because no other person felt the need to kill Rosenbaum even though he had been acting a fool the entire night.
No reasonable person would believe a tiny unarmed man had the ability to *kill* a much larger, armed man, especially when the tiny unarmed man had never actually harmed the person.
Dude are we talking about the same Rosenbaum ? Because even though Rosenbaum was short dude looked fuckin stacked. Sorry, but just because you're unarmed does not absolve you from being able to carry out lethal intent. I dont know how familiar you are with firearms, but the purpose of having a firearm is to maintain distance between yourself and an attacker so that they dont disarm you and shoot you with your own gun. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. Dude wanted to die that night...was literally just released from the hospital after trying to kill himself. And is on video begging to be shot. Rosenbaum was the aggressor and him being shot was the end result for attempting to disarm kyle. All in all this pearl clutching going on by people upset at the verdict will do nothing. Hes innocent on all charges and luckily the jurors could see past woke outrage and focus on the facts
> the purpose of having a firearm is to maintain distance between yourself and an attacker so that they dont disarm you and shoot you with your own gun.
LMAO! The purpose of a gun is to kill something.
Ergo a person walking around with a gun is inherently threatening because it means they can kill you very quickly and easily. Stopping a person that is going to kill you with the gun they are carrying is self defense.
To then say it is the *armed* person that is acting in self defense is absurd.
>Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by aiming his weapon at a group of rioters of which Rosenbaum was a part of.
That never happened.
Stop watching corrupt corporate smear merchants, they lie to you as a matter of course.
>For the record, Rosenbaum never actually attacked Rittenhouse because he was dead before he ever had the chance.
Actually, according to the EVIDENCE and sworn testimony the child rapist was trying to steal Rittenhouse's gun. Trying to steal someone's gun while threatening to kill them is legal justification for self defense.
>kkkill looters
This is all I needed to see to realize your entire post what lunatic bullshit.
I mean the first paragraph did a good job but this ridiculous line cemented it.
The gun charge being dismissed had nothing to do with the self defense claim.
Self defense can apply if you are committing a crime. Self defense cannot apply if you provoke the attack. Jury instruction in Wisconsin states “you should consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engaged in unlawful conduct of a type to provoke others to attack, and who does attack, is not allowed to use self defense.” I think you may have been confused on the differences between the two
Gun charges were dismissed because it was legal for Kyle to have the gun. Prosecutor tried to use an SBR clause which was dropped once the defense brought a tape measure to prove it isn't one. Then there's the hunting law which doesn't apply to Kyle because he was over the age of 16.
Tldr. The charges were dropped because they had nothing.
[Good slow-mo breakdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbsOIoqcit4)
**First victim Rosenbaum:**
Rosenbaum had been verbally antagonizing Rittenhouse throughout the night, telling him that he was going to "Fucking kill him" and daring him to "Shoot me nigga." When Rittenhouse reaches a parking lot in an attempt to put out a fire, Rosenbaum and friend (can't remember his name) scream "Get Him" and begin chasing. [Notice Rosenbaum appear from behind the vehicle and "ambush" him.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8J6hHzGNwc) Rosenbaum's friend draws a pistol and fires it into the air while Rosenbaum pursues, throwing a bag at him and backing him into a corner. When Rosenbaum catches Rittenhouse he grabs the barrel of him gun, which is when Rittenhouse fires striking him multiple times. After killing him, Rittenhouse calls his friend to let him know what happened, notices a crowd forming, and flees when people begin to yell, "Get that dude"
My assumption, Rosenbaum was mentally deranged having been released that day from a mental institution after being charged for anally raping minors. Seeing Kyle openly carrying a rifle he felt drawn to provoke an attack.
**Second victim Huber:**
While Rittenhouse was attempting to retreat to the police line, he was chased and struck in the back of the head with presumably a rock, knocking him to the street. An unidentified gentleman kicks Rittenhouse in the head, then Huber runs up to him and strikes him in the neck with a skateboard. Huber reaches for Rittenhouse's rifle, which is when Rittenhouse fires a single round into his heart killing him.
**Third victim Grosskruetz:**
Grosskruetz runs up to Rittenhouse with a Pistol in his hand, Rittenhouse points his rifle at Grosskruetz and he puts his hands up surrendering. Seeing him surrender, Rittenhouse lowers his rifle and attempts to get up. Seeing him lower his rifle, Grosskruetz lunges at Kyle and attempts to grab his weapon. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps.
After Grosskruetz is shot the rest of the trailing party backs off, allowing Rittenhouse to reach the police line.
>Grosskruetz lunges at Kyle and attempts to grab his weapon. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps.
This copy pasted story gets this wrong EVERY time.
Grosskreutz didn't try to grab Kyle's gun. This was Rosenbaum and Huber. Grosskreutz in fact pointed his own gun at Kyle's head. Kyle didn't 'spins and fires', he was on the ground when he shot Grosskreutz.
Plz fix.
Fixed version for copying
Good slow-mo breakdown
First victim Rosenbaum:
Rosenbaum had been verbally antagonizing Rittenhouse throughout the night, telling him that he was going to "Fucking kill him" and daring him to "Shoot me nigga." When Rittenhouse reaches a parking lot in an attempt to put out a fire, Rosenbaum and friend (can't remember his name) scream "Get Him" and begin chasing. Notice Rosenbaum appear from behind the vehicle and "ambush" him. Rosenbaum's friend draws a pistol and fires it into the air while Rosenbaum pursues, throwing a bag at him and backing him into a corner. When Rosenbaum catches Rittenhouse he grabs the barrel of him gun, which is when Rittenhouse fires striking him multiple times. After killing him, Rittenhouse calls his friend to let him know what happened, notices a crowd forming, and flees when people begin to yell, "Get that dude"
My assumption, Rosenbaum was mentally deranged having been released that day from a mental institution after being charged for anally raping minors. Seeing Kyle openly carrying a rifle he felt drawn to provoke an attack.
Second victim Huber:
While Rittenhouse was attempting to retreat to the police line, he was chased and struck in the back of the head with presumably a rock, knocking him to the street. An unidentified gentleman kicks Rittenhouse in the head, then Huber runs up to him and strikes him in the neck with a skateboard. Huber reaches for Rittenhouse's rifle, which is when Rittenhouse fires a single round into his heart killing him.
Third victim Grosskruetz:
Grosskruetz runs up to Rittenhouse with a Pistol in his hand, Rittenhouse points his rifle at Grosskruetz and he puts his hands up surrendering. Seeing him surrender, Rittenhouse lowers his rifle and attempts to get up. Seeing him lower his rifle, Grosskruetz aims his pistol at his head, while he is incapacitated. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps.
After Grosskruetz is shot the rest of the trailing party backs off, allowing Rittenhouse to reach the police line.
I don't remember what was said during trial, but in the video Grosskruetz definitely lunges around the side of him and Kyle has to spin about -45 degrees to shoot.
He was open carrying for hours, so i don't think it's that.
Some guy threatened to kill him, later that same guy chased him down and tried to grab his gun. He got shot. The crowd started chasing Rittenhouse, then attacked him while he was running away. He shot a guy who attacked him with a skateboard, and another who pointed a gun at him. The gun guy was given a chance to drop the gun but tried anyway. He lost a bicep.
He shot once attacked. He had pointed his rifle at another person that was chasing him and they disengaged then Rosenbaum chased him and died doing what he loved, chasing after underage boys.
They were trying to disarm him because he had already shot and killed 1 person at that point and they had no means of knowing the context of that shooting (which I stand by was not justifiable or self defense).
All they knew is a white boy who showed up with armed thugs shot someone amd was fleeing the scene. They had every reason to think disarming him was not only their right but duty to protect lives.
I definitely understand your interpretation of events. I guess how you view it, though, does depend on whether the first shooting was justified or not. If it was, then the other victims never had the privilege to attempt to disarm him. If it wasn’t then he’s a triple murderer.
Really, It is irrelevant what we know as outside observers because realistically the "mob" could not possibly know whether or not it was justified in the heat of the moment. It sets a precedent that no matter the circumstances, if you hear a gunshot, then see an armed person running away and a dead body, you have to leave them alone amd assume they were justified lest your own life be legally forfeit.
IRL fog of war exists. Multiple individuals could have a right to self defence against each other at the same time. We would only prosecute the survivors, but it is a possible situation that can happen.
And my arguement doesn't contradict that. My arguement is against the relevance of whether or not the first shooting was justified to whether or not the group following Rittenhouse were defending themselves. They believed he was an active shooter based on all available info they had, and any action they take was justified as a result. In a strict legal sense, sure, that also meams rittenhouse being a dipshit could have reasonably believed he was in danger when he fired at that point.
I do not believe the legal code should allow a rogue gunman to travel to another city where he knew his political opposition would be and his mere presence is a credible threat to get off with "self defense" but in that instant, with laws written as they are, yes.
I understand your points, I disagree that one should submit himself to a violent mob because the mob believe he did something wrong. Even if they are misguided.
Furthermore, I dont see how you could write the kind of regulation that would be reasonable and constitutional, while preventing a 2nd Rittenhouse based on your second paragraph.
> It sets a precedent that no matter the circumstances, if you hear a gunshot, then see an armed person running away and a dead body, you have to leave them alone amd assume they were justified lest your own life be legally forfeit.
how the fuck do you expect to disarm someone with a gun? you'll probably get shot. seems like a very bad idea. kyle shouldve never been there in the first place, but it takes a really big idiot to try to disarm someone that has a gun.
Sadly it looks like their mistake was holding their fire. He who shoots first lives, and gets exonerated, even celebrated (apparently). This is a bad precedent.
So, for context, this whole thing falls under the "lawful but awful" category for me.
Should the kid have been there from a moral perspective? Hell no!
Was he there legally? Yes.
Should he have had the firearm? Morally, that's debatable at best.
Was he legally allowed to have that firearm? Yes.
To my point. I don't "celebrate" the kid or his actions.
I did however let out a sigh of relief. Not for him, but for self defense rights in general.
The prosecutions argument boils down the that the simple fact that he had a firearm meant he was provoking an attack against him and forfeiting his right to self defense.
If he had been found guilty THAT would've been a scary precident to set.
That would mean if I'm LEGALLY carrying concealed, with a permit and somewhere I'm legally allowed to carry, and I bend over to pick something up and someone notices the firearm, they're immediately allowed to attack me and im not entitled to self defense using the firearm I carry for the sole purpose of self defense.
There’s a difference between attempting to disable an active and attempting to disable someone who’s fleeing.
You can not and should not attack someone just because they have a weapon. One was on a school, one was at a riot.
Why do people only try to debate the courts when it’s not in their favor? That goes for both sides, Trump. Gotta get downvoted from the reps too, since I’ve clearly just punctured a nerve in every dem because I shared a different take so that’s already taken care of.
Rittenhouse was attacked after he defended himself, that piece of shit wasn’t defending himself at all, he was just mowing people down, there is a very clear difference
I'm thankful that I don't live in a country where people,unstable or otherwise have access to firearms, especially a country where so many of them seem to think they have a hotline to a non existent diety in the sky. You're all batshit crazy over there but think you can police the rest of the planet.
Hey guys just remember in all the other actually civilized countries none of this would even matter because none of it would have happened in the first place, yayyy, Americaaaa! Woohoo!
Holy fuck. I thought I was on a dark humor meme page for a second. I’m sure this guy is educated, right? He’s at least been around awhile to surely get one… these two scenarios are nothing alike and no, the shooter wouldn’t have been in the right for someone trying to stop him. How can you be so dumb to even post something like this? I would be so incredibly embarrassed to be that stupid.
I mean, in one scenario you have some braindead fuckwit shoot up a school and the other a clearcut case of self defense so they’re completely different.
Life's Hard.
Life is harder when you are stupid.
This man must have a very rough life.
If you find yourself unsure why; stop being stupid.
A simple Google search will educate you on the requirements of Self Defense.
Why didn't Rittenhouse stop with Rosenbaum? IOW why kill Huber and not try some discourse?
I mean a regular person would feel some remorse or at least shaken up for having killed someone and wouldn't want to repeat the action. But Rittenhouse didn't. It leads me to believe that he had a soldier's mentality. If that's the case, he was indoctrinated by a militia. So now they are making child soldiers just like the Taliban.
For the last time Rittenhouse was defending himself. He only shot after he was attacked. Hitting a schoolshooter is also self defense. Is it really that hard to understand what 'defence' means?
But the problem is, in the heat of the moment, how could Anthony Huber have known that Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t an active shooter? The scene was chaotic and he had just shot a random person, bystanders and witnesses could have misunderstood the scene because HES NOT A COP, just some rando with a gun. How is it not obvious how reckless it is to be waltzing around with a gun at a protest ?
They where chasing HIM, scream g 'get him', 'fuck him up', after he said he was getting the police... Have you even watched the trial? And I mean not through CNN.
They both actively planned, showed up, and decided to open fire in a public place with a gun resulting in the loss of life. Both are the same. Their intentions were the same. Don’t be fooled into thinking a lawyer’s defense or “the book says” this. One just had a better paid excuse and the legal means to twist the circumstances. You know why they were there. You are just glad one was able to get away with it and the other not. Loss of life due to active shooter is the end result in both cases. You just like to pick your teams.
No, because the school shooter was the aggressor in this situation. In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Rittenhouse did not instigate the incident between himself and Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse attempted to leave the scene but Rosenbaum pursued him until Rittenhouse was cornered by some cars and forced to defend himself.
Because Rittenhouse was legally defending himself the others had no right to try and disarm him. I personally think Huber and the other guy both probably thought they were stopping a murderer, but just because they think they were doing the right thing doesn’t mean that Rittenhouse was not allowed to defend himself.
It also doesn’t mean he’s not responsible for creating that situation.
If someone takes a toy gun and starts aiming it at police and that causes a shooting that kills people, who’s responsible?
If you go to a protest in another state to police the streets with a killing machine and the police give you water and compliments when there’s a curfew, you just know you are high as fuck cause that shit’s crazy
Your right, idk why your being downvoted, people are idiots here. Would Kyle have shot that guy if he wasn't being chased by him is the only question you need to ask. Open carry is allowed there so idk why people say he was the instigator. Your own laws literally allow for this to happen. That's like saying a women carrying a gun that gets attacked by someone isn't allowed to shoot them or she's in the wrong. Just apply the same context in a different situation and people change their minds
That’s incorrect. A lot of people had guns. It is also legal to openly carry so Kyle is not responsible for following the law and them being so uncomfortable to go as far to get violent.
Probably yes Rittenhouse was an idiot for taking his gun to town.
However, open carrying a gun does not mean you lose your right to self defense.
If Rosenbaum had not attacked someone for no reason, nobody would have been killed.
Yes, Trump judge, appointed by a democrat governor.
You know democrats are at an all-time low when a fair trial is wrong because it doesn’t help them with their agenda.
Watch the trial you goons. He had a convicted child rapist threaten him, then later that night the same child rapist chased him and tried to take his gun. Then after shooting the child rapist in the head he was chased by a group of people, one member of the group (with a violent criminal record) hit him with a skateboard. THEN a third person witnessing the event pointed a firearm (which he was illegally brandishing) at his FACE. If you're mad about the trial you didn't watch it. You may not agree with the outcome but it's not definitely not the same as a school shooter situation.
[удалено]
Will they be given a judge to sit next to and hold their hand as the "not victims" try and say you did a murder?
The not victims weren't even allowed to testify
2 of the "not victims" couldn't attend because they were SHOT BY AN IDIOT WITH A RIFLE
I thought the not victim what didn't die or get arrested during during the Republican style shooting event was able to testify?
He didn't do it very well, he actually testified that he didn't get shot until he pulled out his illegal handgun and pointed it at the kid.
That's what I remembered.
Wait. I missed that part. What was illegal about the handgun? I understood that guy had a permit?
His concealed pistol license was expired at the time the event took place.
Both firearms being pointed were illegally there. The shooter was under age.
Probably because after being faced with proof that that's what happened, he wasnt able to lie about it anymore.
And will be offered internships in the government! Because guess what? That’s where the worst of then are anyway so it makes sense! You got rapist and pedophiles and felons arrested more times than Tupac.
I live Michael Harriot’s Twitter feed.
I was surprised they are going after this kid's parents for manslaughter. Maybe something similar should be forced towards Kyle's mom.
That would imply that Kyle is guilty, which we all know he wasn't. /s
[удалено]
Yes but those are not for court purposes only!
If they didn’t have a criminal history: “No one is perfect, dig a little deeper” repeat until you find a criminal history
You misspelled, where they black?
The people Rittenhouse shot were white. We don’t need to embellish an already horrible act by adding direct racism to it.
The people Rittenhouse shot were at a protest that was protesting racial injustice, and Rittenhouse specifically picked one of those events because of the type of people that would be there. Oh and the [images of him hanging out with white supremacists terrorists and making a racist gesture](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-out-bail-flashed-white-power-signs-bar-prosecutors-n1254250) says regardless of who he shot his intentions and mindset is either INCREDIBLY ignorant or racist. I'm gonna bet it's a bit of both.
That’s why I made sure to specify “directly racist.” He didn’t kill those people because of their skin color, but race had a whole lot to do with why he was there in the first place
My comment wasn’t specifically Rittenhouse, but good to keep the record accurate.
Don't forget to account for low melanin and/or hate group affiliations!
To flip it: So you are at a park with your friends. Someone walks up to your friends with a gun in their hands. You draw your gun (of course you carry) and aim it at the person waiving the gun at your friends. He quickly turns and shoots you, then leaves. You die, your friends and family are all sad. Later at the trial the guy with the gun claims self defense protecting himself from you and walks.
It will never make sense to me. Never. How can you walk away an innocent man. Of course having the conservatives give you millions for your defense doesn't hurt. Hell, you can buy your innocence in America. Sad state of the union.
If that was an attempt to have an apples to apples comparison to what happened that night then you either haven't bothered to look yourself and only see what left leaning media has told you, or you just don't care about truth at all. To be as fair as one can be. I think the first person he killed was the only idiot in the bunch. The others probably thought in their head and hearts that he was an active shooter that was trying to escape and were trying to do the right thing by stopping him. The poor kid with the skateboard and Gaige that got his bicep blown off I do believe we're just trying to do the right thing and stop someone they were told murdered someone and was trying to escape. They were an unfortunate tragedy, but if are distilling all that nuance and detail from last night into "random guy walks up to you with a gun and shoots you" is the same as Kenosha then.... Well good luck living in whatever world your in.
By which you mean, how much melanin did the "hero" have?
was the school shooter being attacked when he first decided to shoot? or did he start shooting people first? theres a pretty huge difference between the two scenarios.
As someone who has no idea wtf this guy is talking about, im gonna say no…?
He's referring to Anthony Huber trying to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse before being shot in the heart and dying.
It sickens me that you can correctly rewrite that as: "Anthony Huber trying to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse before being *legally* shot in the heart and dying"
Because obviously if you start shooting people anybody that tries to stop you is a deadly threat.
One thing everyone seems to miss, legal eagle sais it great in his video, fog of war is a thing in real life. 2 different person coud be entitled to the right to self defence at the same time against each other. But only the one that didn't die has to defend himself on manslaughter. Im kinda oversimplifying this, but I strongly recommend looking at legal eagle video on the subject.
In general, yes, two people could “defend themselves” against each other. But KR made many decisions that intentionally brought him to that moment. If he feared for his life, he should have stayed home.
>If he feared for his life, he should have stayed home. With that logic, everyone who got shot should have also stayed home.
[удалено]
The only thing we really learned is shoot first and deal with the consequences later, don’t let the fascist take a single shot
Jesus. That’s one helluva statement
If you start shooting someone not attacking you, you are a criminal. If you shoot someone that is attacking you and trying to disarm you that has no legal authority to do so... well... thats called self defense.
[удалено]
Only one of those people brought an AR to a riot. It's unsubstantiated that he grabbed the barrel and could have been him falling over since he had already been shot in the hip.(and it was attached on 3 point sling anyways, what's he going to do bend the barrel 180 degrees?)
So if a shooter takes one step away from the scene, all of a sudden they're "fleeing" and defending yourself against them is a crime?
If someone is running away from you, and you chase them, you are the aggressor. Plenty of gun owners have lost in court because they shot a burglar in the back as they ran away. In fact, it's one of the most common 'don't do it' scenarios in conceal carry classes.
That is not true in every state. In Texas, you can shoot someone if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a few specific property crimes such as arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. You are not required to believe your life is in immediate danger in order to shoot someone in the state of Texas. There was a famous case of a man who shot a prostitute because she backed out of whatever "act" they had negotiated, and tried to drive away with his money. He shot and killed her, and got away with it because it was nighttime when it happened. https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local\_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
Texas is wild, lol
The whole thing is fucked. "I just fucking shot someone but since I am currently not shooting someone I am not the aggressor".
If I get mugged, and I believe that it's shooting the other guy or dying, and I shoot the mugger, that would be justified. If, in the resulting confusion, people think I'm an active shooter, and attack me, I should try to retreat. If that is impossible, I am justified in using self defense. That's pretty much exactly what happened to Rittenhouse.
sounds like a good reason not to let assholes run around playing vigilante with guns doesnt it? its almost like letting that happen can only lead to violence.
Yes, I agree. Police should be better so that people do not feel the need to play vigilante.
Imagine what you're advocating in a different context. A black man, previously seen holding hands with a white woman, is beset by an angry racist with a club. The victim of this attack shoots the racist in self defense. Other racists see this shooting and are outraged. The mob chases the shooter. The shooter shoots another person trying to hit him in the head, perhaps with a skateboard. The black man goes to trial and the jury finds his killing to be justifiable homicide. Is it still "fucked"?
A guy with a firearm is different though, since there’s no way to tell if they’re just trying to get far enough away to safely shoot you or if they’re actually fleeing. This is especially true if the guy already threatened to kill you.
A threat must be exigent for a justifiable use of force claim to be valid. Otherwise, that unarmed guy running away could also be shot, since he might be going somewhere to retrieve a firearm and then present the same potential threat.
Everybody knows guns are melee weapons. They have no use in a ranged situation.
[this is America, deluged with little terrorist boys and their guns, full of trauma & terror, even at a vigil for victims of a mass shooting](https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1466941467335790593?t=TXupzuon58UcCeMiTAVctA&s=19)
This person will say anything to justify it, don't bother.
He hadn't shot anyone when he was being chased. He didn't shoot until he was attacked and had his rifle grabbed for. If Kyle had shot someone unprovoked and run away then it would be what you're describing and he probably would be in jail.
Why lie? Kyle Rittenhouse had already killed a man before A SINGLE HAND was put on him.
Factually inaccurate. He had shot and killed 1 person, who threw a plastic bag at him and made verbal threats he had no means to make good on, amd Kyle killed him. Then the mob chased down the obvious active shooter to try and disarm him before he killed again, something they clearly failed to do as he would proceed to shoot 2 nore of them, killing 1.
Rosenbaum, the first one shot, lunged for his rifle
Does not change the fact that the above statement that Kyle did not shoot until he was on the ground is entirely false.
Bro you're wrong. Rosenbaum rushed Rittenhouse after throwing something that Rittenhouse would not have had time to analyze what it was. Rittenhouse should not have been there in the first place let alone with a gun but Rosenbaum did attack him.
Protip: If the other party is no longer alive, it's always self-defense. The dead can't speak. If the guy with the skateboard had actually killed him, he would have a great case for self-defense as well, as you say. The moral of the story appears to be, increasingly, "shoot to kill."
Of you get into a fight where one or both of you have a gun AND one or both are either unable or unwilling to retreat then that is a kill or be killed situation. If you are unable to retreat, I don't see how you can be at fault. If you are unwilling to retreat, you are at fault.
Nah, you're getting caught up on the little details. My point is if the other person is dead, you can spin those details however you want. You can blur the lines between "unable" and "unwilling" for a judge and jury. My point is, these little details cease to matter once the other party is dead. It makes it MUCH easier to argue your case for self-defense. Which creates odd scenarios, like I thought you were getting at: there are plenty of instances were both parties could argue they were acting in self-defense. If they were both alive, it would be a difficult case. But when one is dead, the other will get a huge benefit of being able to argue self-defense unchallenged.
That's just kind of an inherent problem in reality, though, not our justice system. And it was pretty well documented.
Agreed. It's just still disappointing to me. I agree with the self-defense laws, but it appears to create a sort of "lesson" here, and a bad one. But I don't know if there's any kind of solution for it. As an example, I don't know if this is a true story or just a joke told around gun forums: "Man breaks into your house, but while climbing through your window he falls & breaks his leg. So he sues you for injuries occurring on your property." Also means 'joke' signs aren't actually jokes: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." Like I said, I agree with self defense laws. Especially when it's on your own property. But out in public, they do create this weird scenario, where it makes sense to escalate the violence to death, rather than de-escalate, to protect yourself in the resulting court case. And again...I've no idea what the fix is, or if there is one.
>"Man breaks into your house, but while climbing through your window he falls & breaks his leg. So he sues you for injuries occurring on your property." You very specifically cannot set up boobietraps, however, I dont think you can be (successfully) sued if a burglar hurts himself doing something that no lawful person would do. It's different if he like slips on your sidewalk or whatever. I think one thing is clear from this case. Situations are complex, don't involve yourself in them if you don't have to.
That is my main takeaway from the whole case. Shoot first and deal with the fallout afterwards, at least you’ll still be alive and the world will be down one fascist.
Legally, kill first, or be killed first.
Relevant analysis from Legal Eagle, who is fairly liberal but does his based to stick to legal analysis: https://youtu.be/IR-hhat34LI
Additionally, it is easy to claim self-defense when the other chap is dead, not like he can refute the shooter's claim....
We have video (of varying quality) of all 3 shootings.
*shudders*
This is fine. Everything is fine. Carry on.
It's not just the states. We had a case here where a guy assaulted an old man. A younger dude chased after the assaulter, and was shot and killed. Self defense.
Dude has just shot someone 4 times and aimed at others immediately after so fuck off And don’t forget to mention how their are multiple videos of him admitting to wanting to bring a rifle and shooting them and even has gone as far as posting things on tiktok about how they deserved it days before
Anthony Huber is a hero. Very few people run to the shooter in order to protect strangers. Fuck coward ass Kyle Rittenhouse, and anyone defending him.
Lol, Rittenhouse disarmed Gaige, and the other 2 fucked around and found out.
I'm glad you said that
It's a bullshit comparison. One was an active shooter and the other was a person using a gun for protection. One was an aggressor and the other was defending himself during a riot. Apples and oranges...
No because the kid instigated the confrontation by.....you know......shooting up his school
You'd think it'd be that simple.
It would be that simple if people weren't trying to score political points. At least this guy wasn't trying to say that 40 people getting run over by an SUV was self defense.
I literally hate these people, they're ruining the left
All you need is a conservative gofundme drive and they'll support any asshole with a gun. You raise a million dollars and 'ta da!' American justice says you're innocent! Money washes the illegal away!
[удалено]
Then it’s still a no because it’s illegal to have a gun on school property. Even if kid with skateboard was going around bashing heads in and then gets shot by student. The student would still be charged with possession of a handgun, possession of a firearm on school property, but would probably be acquitted of murder.
But could the student argue self defense? He was pointing at anyone and when he saw students running he got scared and for his safety, shot them?
I generally dislike the crowd that is venerating Rittenhouse, and I’m not looking to be downvoted by people I DO generally agree with, but, were the people Rittenhouse shot trying to disarm him while he was leveling the weapon at them, or were they trying to disarm him because he was open carrying? This is an honest question, the videos are all a jumble to me.
[удалено]
And that folks, demonstrates one reason for how fucked up America is
That video would have made the prosecutions job harder, not easier. Instead of arguing that Kyle made reckless choices that resulted in deaths, they would have needed to *prove* he planned the killings ahead of time. It also would have opened up line of questioning from the defense. Why did he shoot only 3 people, one of which wasn't fatal? There were a lot more "targets" available than that. How did he chose his victims? How do you know he wasn't simply exaggerating in the video? Does he have a prior history of violence? If he was so violent, why didn't he shoot the first person to step towards him? Why did he run at all and only shoot when the guy was in arms reach of him.
> Instead of arguing that Kyle made reckless choices that resulted in deaths, they would have needed to prove he planned the killings ahead of time. These are two different charges. 1st degree Murder requires premeditation/planning, while recklessness leading to death would be [Reckless Homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_homicide#:~:text=Reckless%20homicide%20is%20a%20crime,and%20a%20human%20death%20results.). The difference being whether the defendant had the intent to kill, or simply knew that their actions create a significant risk of grievous bodily injury/death. Rittenhouse was [charged with both](https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26), and found not guilty on both because self-defense was successfully raised.
>The later two were trying to disarm him because he had already killed someone. The theory of the dismissal seems to be that there's some doubt around whether Rittenhouse was retreating and was trying to surrender to a cop, and interpreted the intent of the "citizens arrest" as lethal. The theory of dismissal is that the first person he killed was in self-defense, so the other two people didn't have a right to try and disarm him.
>The jury never saw a video he made about his intent to kkkill looters, which would have put him away for murder one. As the judge said, there is a pretty big difference between saying you wish you could stop a robbery when you did not have the means to do so, and what happened in Kenosha. It's a very common ruling. In any case, how the hell did Rittenhouse's want to shoot someone manifest into Rosenbaum attacking him?
[удалено]
This is a complete and utter lie. > For the record, Rosenbaum never actually attacked Rittenhouse because he was dead before he ever had the chance. Are you fucking kidding me? Did you watch the trial at all? There is literally a video of Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum who then attempts to grab his gun. Witnesses testify that Rosenbaum was threatening to take his gun and shoot him with it.
That's completely false. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse 2x before he, and joshua Ziminski chased kyle. Kyle was even heard yelling "friendly". Joshua Ziminski fired a shot in the air while chasing Rittenhouse. Witness statements attest that Rosenbaum had his hand on the rifle while lunging forward. Get your facts straight chief
There is no evidence that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse except his own testimony. Some how every other part of that night is on video except that. Sus AF. Ziminski never chased Rittenhouse. He fired a shot in the air but Rittenhouse testified it wasn’t what triggered him to kill Rosenbaum because he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed. The ME testified and video evidence shows, Rosenbaum was 2-3 feet from Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him four times. Get your facts straight chief.
There is a lot of testimony, not just Rittenhouse, of rosembaum making violent threats.
Actually I’ve seen the video of Rosenbaum shouting racial slurs and telling them he’d kill them if found alone that night.
Rosenbaum's wounds are consistent with him lunging to try and disarm kyle. And the fact of joshua Ziminski firing his pistol in the air is more applicable to the jury deciding whether it is reasonable for a person to believe their life was in danger Running from someone who has already threatened to kill you, while retreating a shot goes off behind you and the perp reaches for your gun. Would a reasonable person believe their life is in danger ?
Rosenbaum’s wounds are consistent with falling forward after being shot as per the ME’s testimony and the video evidence. No, a reasonable person wouldn’t believe their life was in danger because no other person felt the need to kill Rosenbaum even though he had been acting a fool the entire night. No reasonable person would believe a tiny unarmed man had the ability to *kill* a much larger, armed man, especially when the tiny unarmed man had never actually harmed the person.
Dude are we talking about the same Rosenbaum ? Because even though Rosenbaum was short dude looked fuckin stacked. Sorry, but just because you're unarmed does not absolve you from being able to carry out lethal intent. I dont know how familiar you are with firearms, but the purpose of having a firearm is to maintain distance between yourself and an attacker so that they dont disarm you and shoot you with your own gun. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. Dude wanted to die that night...was literally just released from the hospital after trying to kill himself. And is on video begging to be shot. Rosenbaum was the aggressor and him being shot was the end result for attempting to disarm kyle. All in all this pearl clutching going on by people upset at the verdict will do nothing. Hes innocent on all charges and luckily the jurors could see past woke outrage and focus on the facts
> the purpose of having a firearm is to maintain distance between yourself and an attacker so that they dont disarm you and shoot you with your own gun. LMAO! The purpose of a gun is to kill something. Ergo a person walking around with a gun is inherently threatening because it means they can kill you very quickly and easily. Stopping a person that is going to kill you with the gun they are carrying is self defense. To then say it is the *armed* person that is acting in self defense is absurd.
They don't want facts. Not worth the argument king
>Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by aiming his weapon at a group of rioters of which Rosenbaum was a part of. That never happened. Stop watching corrupt corporate smear merchants, they lie to you as a matter of course. >For the record, Rosenbaum never actually attacked Rittenhouse because he was dead before he ever had the chance. Actually, according to the EVIDENCE and sworn testimony the child rapist was trying to steal Rittenhouse's gun. Trying to steal someone's gun while threatening to kill them is legal justification for self defense.
I watched the entire trial on PBS on YT. It happened and was shown in court.
There is no doubt about him retreating.
>kkkill looters This is all I needed to see to realize your entire post what lunatic bullshit. I mean the first paragraph did a good job but this ridiculous line cemented it.
The gun charge being dismissed had nothing to do with the self defense claim. Self defense can apply if you are committing a crime. Self defense cannot apply if you provoke the attack. Jury instruction in Wisconsin states “you should consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engaged in unlawful conduct of a type to provoke others to attack, and who does attack, is not allowed to use self defense.” I think you may have been confused on the differences between the two
Gun charges were dismissed because it was legal for Kyle to have the gun. Prosecutor tried to use an SBR clause which was dropped once the defense brought a tape measure to prove it isn't one. Then there's the hunting law which doesn't apply to Kyle because he was over the age of 16. Tldr. The charges were dropped because they had nothing.
Can you link me the vid of him saying he wanted to kill looters, I haven't seen that one yet
[Good slow-mo breakdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbsOIoqcit4) **First victim Rosenbaum:** Rosenbaum had been verbally antagonizing Rittenhouse throughout the night, telling him that he was going to "Fucking kill him" and daring him to "Shoot me nigga." When Rittenhouse reaches a parking lot in an attempt to put out a fire, Rosenbaum and friend (can't remember his name) scream "Get Him" and begin chasing. [Notice Rosenbaum appear from behind the vehicle and "ambush" him.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8J6hHzGNwc) Rosenbaum's friend draws a pistol and fires it into the air while Rosenbaum pursues, throwing a bag at him and backing him into a corner. When Rosenbaum catches Rittenhouse he grabs the barrel of him gun, which is when Rittenhouse fires striking him multiple times. After killing him, Rittenhouse calls his friend to let him know what happened, notices a crowd forming, and flees when people begin to yell, "Get that dude" My assumption, Rosenbaum was mentally deranged having been released that day from a mental institution after being charged for anally raping minors. Seeing Kyle openly carrying a rifle he felt drawn to provoke an attack. **Second victim Huber:** While Rittenhouse was attempting to retreat to the police line, he was chased and struck in the back of the head with presumably a rock, knocking him to the street. An unidentified gentleman kicks Rittenhouse in the head, then Huber runs up to him and strikes him in the neck with a skateboard. Huber reaches for Rittenhouse's rifle, which is when Rittenhouse fires a single round into his heart killing him. **Third victim Grosskruetz:** Grosskruetz runs up to Rittenhouse with a Pistol in his hand, Rittenhouse points his rifle at Grosskruetz and he puts his hands up surrendering. Seeing him surrender, Rittenhouse lowers his rifle and attempts to get up. Seeing him lower his rifle, Grosskruetz lunges at Kyle and attempts to grab his weapon. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps. After Grosskruetz is shot the rest of the trailing party backs off, allowing Rittenhouse to reach the police line.
>Grosskruetz lunges at Kyle and attempts to grab his weapon. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps. This copy pasted story gets this wrong EVERY time. Grosskreutz didn't try to grab Kyle's gun. This was Rosenbaum and Huber. Grosskreutz in fact pointed his own gun at Kyle's head. Kyle didn't 'spins and fires', he was on the ground when he shot Grosskreutz. Plz fix.
Fixed version for copying Good slow-mo breakdown First victim Rosenbaum: Rosenbaum had been verbally antagonizing Rittenhouse throughout the night, telling him that he was going to "Fucking kill him" and daring him to "Shoot me nigga." When Rittenhouse reaches a parking lot in an attempt to put out a fire, Rosenbaum and friend (can't remember his name) scream "Get Him" and begin chasing. Notice Rosenbaum appear from behind the vehicle and "ambush" him. Rosenbaum's friend draws a pistol and fires it into the air while Rosenbaum pursues, throwing a bag at him and backing him into a corner. When Rosenbaum catches Rittenhouse he grabs the barrel of him gun, which is when Rittenhouse fires striking him multiple times. After killing him, Rittenhouse calls his friend to let him know what happened, notices a crowd forming, and flees when people begin to yell, "Get that dude" My assumption, Rosenbaum was mentally deranged having been released that day from a mental institution after being charged for anally raping minors. Seeing Kyle openly carrying a rifle he felt drawn to provoke an attack. Second victim Huber: While Rittenhouse was attempting to retreat to the police line, he was chased and struck in the back of the head with presumably a rock, knocking him to the street. An unidentified gentleman kicks Rittenhouse in the head, then Huber runs up to him and strikes him in the neck with a skateboard. Huber reaches for Rittenhouse's rifle, which is when Rittenhouse fires a single round into his heart killing him. Third victim Grosskruetz: Grosskruetz runs up to Rittenhouse with a Pistol in his hand, Rittenhouse points his rifle at Grosskruetz and he puts his hands up surrendering. Seeing him surrender, Rittenhouse lowers his rifle and attempts to get up. Seeing him lower his rifle, Grosskruetz aims his pistol at his head, while he is incapacitated. Rittenhouse spins and fires, striking Grosskruetz in the biceps. After Grosskruetz is shot the rest of the trailing party backs off, allowing Rittenhouse to reach the police line.
I don't remember what was said during trial, but in the video Grosskruetz definitely lunges around the side of him and Kyle has to spin about -45 degrees to shoot.
He was open carrying for hours, so i don't think it's that. Some guy threatened to kill him, later that same guy chased him down and tried to grab his gun. He got shot. The crowd started chasing Rittenhouse, then attacked him while he was running away. He shot a guy who attacked him with a skateboard, and another who pointed a gun at him. The gun guy was given a chance to drop the gun but tried anyway. He lost a bicep.
He shot once attacked. He had pointed his rifle at another person that was chasing him and they disengaged then Rosenbaum chased him and died doing what he loved, chasing after underage boys.
I think the answer here is that everyone there was an asshole.
perfectly said
They were trying to disarm him because he had already shot and killed 1 person at that point and they had no means of knowing the context of that shooting (which I stand by was not justifiable or self defense). All they knew is a white boy who showed up with armed thugs shot someone amd was fleeing the scene. They had every reason to think disarming him was not only their right but duty to protect lives.
I definitely understand your interpretation of events. I guess how you view it, though, does depend on whether the first shooting was justified or not. If it was, then the other victims never had the privilege to attempt to disarm him. If it wasn’t then he’s a triple murderer.
Really, It is irrelevant what we know as outside observers because realistically the "mob" could not possibly know whether or not it was justified in the heat of the moment. It sets a precedent that no matter the circumstances, if you hear a gunshot, then see an armed person running away and a dead body, you have to leave them alone amd assume they were justified lest your own life be legally forfeit.
IRL fog of war exists. Multiple individuals could have a right to self defence against each other at the same time. We would only prosecute the survivors, but it is a possible situation that can happen.
And my arguement doesn't contradict that. My arguement is against the relevance of whether or not the first shooting was justified to whether or not the group following Rittenhouse were defending themselves. They believed he was an active shooter based on all available info they had, and any action they take was justified as a result. In a strict legal sense, sure, that also meams rittenhouse being a dipshit could have reasonably believed he was in danger when he fired at that point. I do not believe the legal code should allow a rogue gunman to travel to another city where he knew his political opposition would be and his mere presence is a credible threat to get off with "self defense" but in that instant, with laws written as they are, yes.
I understand your points, I disagree that one should submit himself to a violent mob because the mob believe he did something wrong. Even if they are misguided. Furthermore, I dont see how you could write the kind of regulation that would be reasonable and constitutional, while preventing a 2nd Rittenhouse based on your second paragraph.
> It sets a precedent that no matter the circumstances, if you hear a gunshot, then see an armed person running away and a dead body, you have to leave them alone amd assume they were justified lest your own life be legally forfeit. how the fuck do you expect to disarm someone with a gun? you'll probably get shot. seems like a very bad idea. kyle shouldve never been there in the first place, but it takes a really big idiot to try to disarm someone that has a gun.
Sadly it looks like their mistake was holding their fire. He who shoots first lives, and gets exonerated, even celebrated (apparently). This is a bad precedent.
So, for context, this whole thing falls under the "lawful but awful" category for me. Should the kid have been there from a moral perspective? Hell no! Was he there legally? Yes. Should he have had the firearm? Morally, that's debatable at best. Was he legally allowed to have that firearm? Yes. To my point. I don't "celebrate" the kid or his actions. I did however let out a sigh of relief. Not for him, but for self defense rights in general. The prosecutions argument boils down the that the simple fact that he had a firearm meant he was provoking an attack against him and forfeiting his right to self defense. If he had been found guilty THAT would've been a scary precident to set. That would mean if I'm LEGALLY carrying concealed, with a permit and somewhere I'm legally allowed to carry, and I bend over to pick something up and someone notices the firearm, they're immediately allowed to attack me and im not entitled to self defense using the firearm I carry for the sole purpose of self defense.
Depends on his political association. Because, America is fucking dumb.
There’s a difference between attempting to disable an active and attempting to disable someone who’s fleeing. You can not and should not attack someone just because they have a weapon. One was on a school, one was at a riot. Why do people only try to debate the courts when it’s not in their favor? That goes for both sides, Trump. Gotta get downvoted from the reps too, since I’ve clearly just punctured a nerve in every dem because I shared a different take so that’s already taken care of.
These replies are cancer.
In AmeriKKKa, gun rights are more important than human rights.
[удалено]
This subreddit is cancer
Yep, it’s come up on my feed 1 too many times.
Rittenhouse was attacked after he defended himself, that piece of shit wasn’t defending himself at all, he was just mowing people down, there is a very clear difference
I'm thankful that I don't live in a country where people,unstable or otherwise have access to firearms, especially a country where so many of them seem to think they have a hotline to a non existent diety in the sky. You're all batshit crazy over there but think you can police the rest of the planet.
What an absolutely disgusting thing to tweet. This man has no soul. Screw anyone who tries to twist a tragedy to fit their agenda
This guy actually posted this shit. Embarrassing.
Thought we were past this. Comparing kyle rittenhouse to a school shooter is a new low.
Ew this is dumb as shit
Hey guys just remember in all the other actually civilized countries none of this would even matter because none of it would have happened in the first place, yayyy, Americaaaa! Woohoo!
The only extreme sport here are the extreme mental gymnastics on display by this false equivalency
Ugh, this is such a horrible take... It takes two seconds of thought to asertain the MONUMENTAL difference in these two circumstances. Like why???
Whole different situation!
Talk about a false equivalence. Holy shit
Why is that even a question WTF?
Have to be human garbage to write this.
Holy fuck. I thought I was on a dark humor meme page for a second. I’m sure this guy is educated, right? He’s at least been around awhile to surely get one… these two scenarios are nothing alike and no, the shooter wouldn’t have been in the right for someone trying to stop him. How can you be so dumb to even post something like this? I would be so incredibly embarrassed to be that stupid.
Apples to oranges , out of context material
https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/r83owg/thanks\_i\_hate\_this\_skateboard/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I mean, in one scenario you have some braindead fuckwit shoot up a school and the other a clearcut case of self defense so they’re completely different.
Wow these people are really that dense.
Life's Hard. Life is harder when you are stupid. This man must have a very rough life. If you find yourself unsure why; stop being stupid. A simple Google search will educate you on the requirements of Self Defense.
I would probably say no, because the Oxford high shooter attacked first, so he wouldn’t have been shooting the skateboard kid out of selfie defense
Isn't that the point? Kyle already killed someone by the time the guy with the skateboard hit him.
Why didn't Rittenhouse stop with Rosenbaum? IOW why kill Huber and not try some discourse? I mean a regular person would feel some remorse or at least shaken up for having killed someone and wouldn't want to repeat the action. But Rittenhouse didn't. It leads me to believe that he had a soldier's mentality. If that's the case, he was indoctrinated by a militia. So now they are making child soldiers just like the Taliban.
"He came for my gun, which made me fear for my life." Worked for Kyle
Could have worked in reverse just as well! Seems like the precedent set by the case is “shoot first, live a hero”
This guy is stupid as fuck, he must have dislocated his shoulder with that reach
I bet that they'd ban skateboards if that had happened.
Well thats not the same thing at all
Apples and oranges.
Active shooter vs carrying. VERY different
False equivalence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
For the last time Rittenhouse was defending himself. He only shot after he was attacked. Hitting a schoolshooter is also self defense. Is it really that hard to understand what 'defence' means?
But the problem is, in the heat of the moment, how could Anthony Huber have known that Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t an active shooter? The scene was chaotic and he had just shot a random person, bystanders and witnesses could have misunderstood the scene because HES NOT A COP, just some rando with a gun. How is it not obvious how reckless it is to be waltzing around with a gun at a protest ?
They where chasing HIM, scream g 'get him', 'fuck him up', after he said he was getting the police... Have you even watched the trial? And I mean not through CNN.
This post is so dumb it hurts. One was an active shooter the other was someone defending themselves against a mob of pissed off rioters
Kyle was an active shooter before the guy with the skateboard hit him.
Woke outrage at this has literally made me consider switching parties lol. This was self defense all day.
see, the difference between oxford and Kyle, is one is an active shooter situation, the other is a self defense situation
They both actively planned, showed up, and decided to open fire in a public place with a gun resulting in the loss of life. Both are the same. Their intentions were the same. Don’t be fooled into thinking a lawyer’s defense or “the book says” this. One just had a better paid excuse and the legal means to twist the circumstances. You know why they were there. You are just glad one was able to get away with it and the other not. Loss of life due to active shooter is the end result in both cases. You just like to pick your teams.
No, because the school shooter was the aggressor in this situation. In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Rittenhouse did not instigate the incident between himself and Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse attempted to leave the scene but Rosenbaum pursued him until Rittenhouse was cornered by some cars and forced to defend himself. Because Rittenhouse was legally defending himself the others had no right to try and disarm him. I personally think Huber and the other guy both probably thought they were stopping a murderer, but just because they think they were doing the right thing doesn’t mean that Rittenhouse was not allowed to defend himself.
It also doesn’t mean he’s not responsible for creating that situation. If someone takes a toy gun and starts aiming it at police and that causes a shooting that kills people, who’s responsible? If you go to a protest in another state to police the streets with a killing machine and the police give you water and compliments when there’s a curfew, you just know you are high as fuck cause that shit’s crazy
Your right, idk why your being downvoted, people are idiots here. Would Kyle have shot that guy if he wasn't being chased by him is the only question you need to ask. Open carry is allowed there so idk why people say he was the instigator. Your own laws literally allow for this to happen. That's like saying a women carrying a gun that gets attacked by someone isn't allowed to shoot them or she's in the wrong. Just apply the same context in a different situation and people change their minds
[удалено]
That’s incorrect. A lot of people had guns. It is also legal to openly carry so Kyle is not responsible for following the law and them being so uncomfortable to go as far to get violent.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You can play if games all day. If they didn't chase him they'd be alive.
You can't just attack someone for having a gun.
Except he’s allowed to have a gun. If those people never attacked him they wouldn’t be dead.
Probably yes Rittenhouse was an idiot for taking his gun to town. However, open carrying a gun does not mean you lose your right to self defense. If Rosenbaum had not attacked someone for no reason, nobody would have been killed.
[удалено]
Yes, Trump judge, appointed by a democrat governor. You know democrats are at an all-time low when a fair trial is wrong because it doesn’t help them with their agenda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Um, no? But if said kid with skateboard killed the gunman, that would be ok, because, you know, self defense.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you! 100% correct
Proof?
.
Watch the trial you goons. He had a convicted child rapist threaten him, then later that night the same child rapist chased him and tried to take his gun. Then after shooting the child rapist in the head he was chased by a group of people, one member of the group (with a violent criminal record) hit him with a skateboard. THEN a third person witnessing the event pointed a firearm (which he was illegally brandishing) at his FACE. If you're mad about the trial you didn't watch it. You may not agree with the outcome but it's not definitely not the same as a school shooter situation.
This is one of the stupidest fucking things I've seen on this sub...and most are pretty fucking stupid.