Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Endus]

And obviously, you are totally unwilling to not present Rittenhouse as total villain, but just an young idiot with a gun, because you are totally biaised

I don't start from the belief that he's a villain, and I introduce nothing to the discussion other than his known actions.

When that results in a conclusion of villainy, that's not me being unfair.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sticking bunny ears on it and pretending there's some uncertainty is not a good faith argument.

Edit: I'll also note you have a serious trend of claiming I have some "bias", while refusing to address any specific claims or statements I am making to demonstrate any actual instance where I'm misrepresenting anything. You're just making empty ad hominems.

[Elegiac]

And obviously, you are totally unwilling to not present Rittenhouse as total villain

Just doing what you do with every victim of police brutality that has a prior criminal record, hun.

If that's grating to you, maybe reflect a little.

[Specialka]

Just doing what you do with every victim of police brutality that has a prior criminal record, hun.

If that's grating to you, maybe reflect a little.

Yeah, just saying that most case of "police brutality" are not as clear as you make them out to be. And you just can't stand it because Police Officers are villain to you, plain and simple.

[Elegiac]

Yeah, just saying that most case of "police brutality" are not as clear as you make them out to be.

Why's that the case there but you never even consider the possibility that Rittenhouse might be beyond the wrong beyond some nonsense cop out about it being the jury's decision.

Are you functionally incapable of coming to an opinion without a court of law detailing it for you beforehand, is my question.

[Stormspellz]

And obviously, you are totally unwilling to not present Rittenhouse as total villain, but just an young idiot with a gun, because you are totally biaised

Appraising his actions is what matters, you know crossing state lines with an illegal gun, escalating the situation by pointing a gun at people then murdering people is; again all that mattes

[Specialka]

Why's that the case there but you never even consider the possibility that Rittenhouse might be beyond the wrong beyond some nonsense cop out about it being the jury's decision.

Are you functionally incapable of coming to an opinion without a court of law detailing it for you beforehand, is my question.

Unlike you, I listen to the arguments of both side, and that is why a court is needed to get a decision.

[Elegiac]

Unlike you, I listen to the arguments of both side

Factually untrue; the instant there's a report of police brutality in a thread you come in and start making excuses for law enforcement. There's no "both sides" on your part until you're forced to admit it.

and that is why a court is needed to get a decision.

So yes, you're not capable of forming an opinion without an authority figure detailing it for you beforehand.

[Specialka]

Factually untrue; the instant there's a report of police brutality in a thread you come in and start making excuses for law enforcement. There's no "both sides" on your part until you're forced to admit it.



So yes, you're not capable of forming an opinion without an authority figure detailing it for you beforehand.

I know you do not like a "state of right". Your intervention makes it quite clear but as far as we know, it is the best system to get a fair judgement.

[Xyonai]

Hot Take: I don't think Kyle actually went down there with the cold-blooded intent to actually shoot someone. People can be motherfucking stupid, and he probably thought the cosplay and pointing a gun around like he was some wanna-be action hero was the cool thing to do

But did the people around him know that? Likely not. The lot of them probably saw some white kid with an AR pointing it at them and were worried he was a hair-trigger away from actually shooting someone then and there. So when someone tries to do something about it, the dumbass kid gets spooked and shoots someone, then keeps panicking and making dumb-shit decisions.

But none of this really excuses the things he's done. He still traveled across state lines, illegally acquired a firearm, acted in such a way that the people around him perceived him as a threat, then used that illegal firearm to kill two and injure one other, then fled back across state lines to avoid arrest.

But we can't read minds, and they sure as shit can't either. None of the people who were worried about getting - or did get - shot could've known that he might've just been putting on a tough guy act, as much as Kyle sure as shit didn't know that the people he killed - just so happened - to have criminal records.

Kid's still guilty but I, personally, feel like he's more of an impulsive fucking idiot then a cold blooded killer but don't think the defense of 'My client isn't evil, just a moron' will win him sympathy points.

[Fincayra]

Except that we have witness testimony that he was endangering protestors by mishandling his weapon, prior to any of the video footage.

And if you're saying you'd shoot someone for trying to disarm you, in Wisconsin, that's murder and would fail to qualify as reasonable use of force in self defense. There's no threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, there.

If you want to argue that Rosenbaum posed such a threat, that's an affirmative defense, and you're going to need to rely entirely on what information Rittenhouse could have known in that moment. I've yet to see anything that didn't boil down to some horseshit emotional appeal or dehumanization.



Provide the request from the business in question, delivered specifically to himself personally or the leadership of his militia group specifically. I have absolutely no reason to take Rittenhouse's statement as true, as it's a very common lie used by white nationalist militias to support their initiation of violence against protests for black civil rights.



1> We have witness testimony that Rittenhouse was mishandling his weapon and putting protestors, including Rosenbaum, at direct risk.
2> Why are you making shit up and pretending that's what Rosenbaum was thinking? Stick to the facts.



In the second situation, Rittenhouse is the active shooter they were trying to stop. He should have called the cops after he shot Rosenbaum, rather than fleeing the scene. He should have disarmed himself and surrendered when people tried to stop him from fleeing the scene.

That shit should all be pretty clear. And Rittenhouse did not do these things. Not because he was too panicked to think of using his phone; we audibly hear him on video calling a buddy to say he just killed someone, right after killing Rosenbaum. And not because he didn't think of the police; he walked right past the police on his way out of the area.

Also, stop insisting on calling Rittenhouse a "child". He was 17. He could've been 18 or 19. Nobody was checking his fricking ID or something. It's not like he was a 9 year old and visibly a child. Just like how Rittenhouse couldn't have known any assailants had any criminal records and thus that can't be used against them, they couldn't have known he was under 18 and that can't be used against them either.

- - - Updated - - -



Literally only applies if the person who was killed was actively trying to break into your own home, car, or place of business or had already broken in. Which couldn't possibly be the case, here. Also doesn't apply if the actor (the person killing the other) was engaged in criminal activity at the time, which Rittenhouse was, given that he was illegally armed and out after curfew. So fails on two completely separate grounds.

You may also want to take a gander at 939.48 (2); Provocation.

on Rosenbaum:

Protesters were recorded on video pushing a dumpster, lit on fire, through a crowd and towards a gas station. A guard, dressed in similar clothing to Rittenhouse – a green shirt, cap, and bag – put out the dumpster fire, which enraged Rosenbaum, who shouted verbal abuse at the guard. More arson takes place and is recorded on video. Someone with identical features to Rittenhouse – having the same build, clothing, and rifle; and also wearing brown shoes, blue gloves, and an orange medical kit – is then seen running with a fire extinguisher. According to Rittenhouse's defense attorneys, the person with the fire extinguisher was indeed Rittenhouse, and what was not recorded on video was that he used it to put out one of the fires, which provoked a confrontation from Rosenbaum, who mistook Rittenhouse for the guard who had put out the dumpster fire earlier.

These are the facts of the case, and not your assumption that Rosenbaum was just running after him to disarm him, as you were claiming earlier. It's published into record.

Again, I have no defenses for the kid when it comes to turning himself in right away, more stupid shit from a clearly whole night of stupid decisions. But his life was clearly put in danger that night. This is a divisive case for a reason, because people ended up dead as a result of some of those stupid decisions. Unfortunately, some of the stupid decisions that night weren't his. It wasn't his stupid decisions to set fire to multiple dumpsters. It wasn't his stupid decision to chase after a kid with a loaded AR-15, which he was "mishandling" (yet only killed the people he wanted to kill, and not innocent bystanders, funny that). It also wasn't his stupid decision to put his hands on the weapon of a panicked kid who was much smaller than his attacker. You realize trying to "disarm" him is theft of Kyle's property, right? Might as well be a mugging, which the more I think about it is more than enough reason for some kind of defense, maybe not a fatal shot one, but definitely not a standing there and letting someone take your deadly weapon away kind of response. I have no idea what your terminal liberal disease has done to your brain and what you think Kyle should have done in each of these situations, but defense was clearly called for in all 3 of them. He was being disarmed in one of them, he was attacked with a skateboard in the second, and the third someone was literally pointing a handgun at him. We can't read the minds of anyone in that situation. Only the living get to tell their stories. And, I'll listen to their day in court and see what they have to say.

By the way, a human's brain isn't fully developed until they are in their mid 20's. Hence, why adults still call teenagers children. Charging a teen as an adult is a case by case basis. depending on whether the prosecution determines whether the defendant was in full possession of the knowledge that they were committing a heinous act and deserve the full punishment. They've even charged kids as young as 12 and 13 as adults.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyc...ational%20part.

It really exposes that their stance is entirely predicated on defending Rittenhouse, regardless of the facts. You have to consider the two events in different contexts, and in the latter, Rittenhouse is clearly an active shooter. In what universe would we ever give an active shooter the right to self defense against those trying to stop them?

And yet, that's their argument. Because it isn't based on the facts, it's based on their allegiance to what Rittenhouse represents, ideologically. Which is white supremacy, to be clear. He was present in Kenosha to oppose protestors who were pushing for equitable treatment of black Americans, meaning he opposed that idea. That makes him white supremacist.

You are using the term active shooter interchangably with someone who was just in an incident where he was attacked and defended himself. An active shooter is someone who was in the upper floors of a hotel and shot up a las vegas crowd. An active shooter is someone who walks up to a cop car, shoots both cops multiple times and runs away. You are using an emotionally loaded term to argue in bad faith about this issue.

You are arguing in bad faith about this. You are putting thoughts in his head. The car dealership they were protecting suffered 2.5 million dollars in damage the night before from "protestors". What does "pushing for equitable treatment of black Americans" have to do with torching buildings, cars and DUMPSTERS? Oh, I forgot, MOSTLY PEACEFUL. Love how you immediately label him as the other, which makes him that much easier to demonize by you, he's a white supremacist! He must BE PUNISHED. Oh, and you label anyone defending him as a white supremacist as well. Love you too Endus, nice to know you are in full possession of the knowledge of what my views are, despite my never really talking about them on the forums.

Don't forget guys, If you support Kyle, you are a white supremacist. Shame! Shame! Shame!

- - - Updated - - -

Hot Take: I don't think Kyle actually went down there with the cold-blooded intent to actually shoot someone. People can be motherfucking stupid, and he probably thought the cosplay and pointing a gun around like he was some wanna-be action hero was the cool thing to do

But did the people around him know that? Likely not. The lot of them probably saw some white kid with an AR pointing it at them and were worried he was a hair-trigger away from actually shooting someone then and there. So when someone tries to do something about it, the dumbass kid gets spooked and shoots someone, then keeps panicking and making dumb-shit decisions.

But none of this really excuses the things he's done. He still traveled across state lines, illegally acquired a firearm, acted in such a way that the people around him perceived him as a threat, then used that illegal firearm to kill two and injure one other, then fled back across state lines to avoid arrest.

But we can't read minds, and they sure as shit can't either. None of the people who were worried about getting - or did get - shot could've known that he might've just been putting on a tough guy act, as much as Kyle sure as shit didn't know that the people he killed - just so happened - to have criminal records.

Kid's still guilty but I, personally, feel like he's more of an impulsive fucking idiot then a cold blooded killer but don't think the defense of 'My client isn't evil, just a moron' will win him sympathy points.

Thanks for being more reasonable than most on the issue, and I agree with you on him being dumb as a box of rocks.

[Xyonai]

Thanks for being more reasonable than most on the issue, and I agree with you on him being dumb as a box of rocks.

I still think the book should get thrown at him for what he's done. If being a dumbass and intentionally putting yourself in dangerous situations got you off killing someone then Drunk Drivers wouldn't have to worry about the law.

[Fincayra]

I don't start from the belief that he's a villain, and I introduce nothing to the discussion other than his known actions.

When that results in a conclusion of villainy, that's not me being unfair.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sticking bunny ears on it and pretending there's some uncertainty is not a good faith argument.

Edit: I'll also note you have a serious trend of claiming I have some "bias", while refusing to address any specific claims or statements I am making to demonstrate any actual instance where I'm misrepresenting anything. You're just making empty ad hominems.

Right. We could give you the benefit of the doubt. Or we could just read the thread.

It really exposes that their stance is entirely predicated on defending Rittenhouse, regardless of the facts. You have to consider the two events in different contexts, and in the latter, Rittenhouse is clearly an active shooter. In what universe would we ever give an active shooter the right to self defense against those trying to stop them?

And yet, that's their argument. Because it isn't based on the facts, it's based on their allegiance to what Rittenhouse represents, ideologically. Which is white supremacy, to be clear. He was present in Kenosha to oppose protestors who were pushing for equitable treatment of black Americans, meaning he opposed that idea. That makes him white supremacist.

This post betrays your bias. You label him and anyone who has the balls to argue against you as the other. I'm even thinking about reporting the posts, because you're basically calling me white supremacist.

[shimerra]

This post betrays your bias. You label him and anyone who has the balls to argue against you as the other. I'm even thinking about reporting the posts, because you're basically calling me white supremacist.

Probably would help if you didn't vomit their talking points verbatim and drop the victim card like it's a hot potato.

His life was only "in danger" because he wanted to play militia man and chose to illegally carry a firearm which resulted in the death. You seem plenty happy to label the multiple people who felt Rittenhouse shooting into the crowd was a threat to their life. You've also reiterated multiple confirmed lies/false accounts of what happened. I'm not sure you understand basic reality of the situation. Which tracks with your responses in this thread.

[postman1782]

on Rosenbaum:

Protesters were recorded on video pushing a dumpster, lit on fire, through a crowd and towards a gas station. A guard, dressed in similar clothing to Rittenhouse – a green shirt, cap, and bag – put out the dumpster fire, which enraged Rosenbaum, who shouted verbal abuse at the guard. More arson takes place and is recorded on video. Someone with identical features to Rittenhouse – having the same build, clothing, and rifle; and also wearing brown shoes, blue gloves, and an orange medical kit – is then seen running with a fire extinguisher. According to Rittenhouse's defense attorneys, the person with the fire extinguisher was indeed Rittenhouse, and what was not recorded on video was that he used it to put out one of the fires, which provoked a confrontation from Rosenbaum, who mistook Rittenhouse for the guard who had put out the dumpster fire earlier.

These are the facts of the case, and not your assumption that Rosenbaum was just running after him to disarm him, as you were claiming earlier. It's published into record.

Again, I have no defenses for the kid when it comes to turning himself in right away, more stupid shit from a clearly whole night of stupid decisions. But his life was clearly put in danger that night. This is a divisive case for a reason, because people ended up dead as a result of some of those stupid decisions. Unfortunately, some of the stupid decisions that night weren't his. It wasn't his stupid decisions to set fire to multiple dumpsters. It wasn't his stupid decision to chase after a kid with a loaded AR-15, which he was "mishandling" (yet only killed the people he wanted to kill, and not innocent bystanders, funny that). It also wasn't his stupid decision to put his hands on the weapon of a panicked kid who was much smaller than his attacker. You realize trying to "disarm" him is theft of Kyle's property, right? Might as well be a mugging, which the more I think about it is more than enough reason for some kind of defense, maybe not a fatal shot one, but definitely not a standing there and letting someone take your deadly weapon away kind of response. I have no idea what your terminal liberal disease has done to your brain and what you think Kyle should have done in each of these situations, but defense was clearly called for in all 3 of them. He was being disarmed in one of them, he was attacked with a skateboard in the second, and the third someone was literally pointing a handgun at him. We can't read the minds of anyone in that situation. Only the living get to tell their stories. And, I'll listen to their day in court and see what they have to say.

By the way, a human's brain isn't fully developed until they are in their mid 20's. Hence, why adults still call teenagers children. Charging a teen as an adult is a case by case basis. depending on whether the prosecution determines whether the defendant was in full possession of the knowledge that they were committing a heinous act and deserve the full punishment. They've even charged kids as young as 12 and 13 as adults.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyc...ational%20part.



You are using the term active shooter interchangably with someone who was just in an incident where he was attacked and defended himself. An active shooter is someone who was in the upper floors of a hotel and shot up a las vegas crowd. An active shooter is someone who walks up to a cop car, shoots both cops multiple times and runs away. You are using an emotionally loaded term to argue in bad faith about this issue.

You are arguing in bad faith about this. You are putting thoughts in his head. The car dealership they were protecting suffered 2.5 million dollars in damage the night before from "protestors". What does "pushing for equitable treatment of black Americans" have to do with torching buildings, cars and DUMPSTERS? Oh, I forgot, MOSTLY PEACEFUL. Love how you immediately label him as the other, which makes him that much easier to demonize by you, he's a white supremacist! He must BE PUNISHED. Oh, and you label anyone defending him as a white supremacist as well. Love you too Endus, nice to know you are in full possession of the knowledge of what my views are, despite my never really talking about them on the forums.

Don't forget guys, If you support Kyle, you are a white supremacist. Shame! Shame! Shame!

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for being more reasonable than most on the issue, and I agree with you on him being dumb as a box of rocks.

FYI, it was not Rittenhouse that put that fire out, so your shitty argument is already thrown out and the rest of it can be ignored.

As you can see in this video, it is a fat guy in a black shirt, with no hat on that put it out.

And it wasn't Rosenbaum pushing the dumpster.



Now, if you have another video, post it. But it wasn't Rittenhouse in this one, probably wasn't him in your or his shitty lawyers' claim.

[Fincayra]

FYI, it was not Rittenhouse that put that fire out, so your shitty argument is already thrown out and the rest of it can be ignored.

As you can see in this video, it is a fat guy in a black shirt, with no hat on that put it out.

And it wasn't Rosenbaum pushing the dumpster.



Now, if you have another video, post it. But it wasn't Rittenhouse in this one, probably wasn't him in your or his shitty lawyers' claim.

There were 1 dumpster in the situation, it appears to have been lit up multiple times, i have no idea. We don't have video of the entire night. There were multiple peiple getting pissed about it getting put out though, and a huge argument between the protestors and the guys with guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUnk...ctr=1608164171

Video with basically all the footage.

[postman1782]

There were 1 dumpster in the situation, it appears to have been lit up multiple times, i have no idea. We don't have video of the entire night. There were multiple peiple getting pissed about it getting put out though, and a huge argument between the protestors and the guys with guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUnk...ctr=1608164171

Video with basically all the footage.

And I have seen where Rittenhouse actually turned and fired, Rosenbaum NEVER TOUCHED HIM. Doesn't matter if he was carrying a fire extinguisher, no video shows him actually putting anything out. The video leaves out everything from the first shooting.

And if Rittenhouse was reacting to the gunshot like that dumbass Daily Caller "reporter" was saying, then he killed the wrong person, which is why he got the 2nd degree murder charge for it.

[Endus]

on Rosenbaum:

Protesters were recorded on video pushing a dumpster, lit on fire, through a crowd and towards a gas station. A guard, dressed in similar clothing to Rittenhouse – a green shirt, cap, and bag – put out the dumpster fire, which enraged Rosenbaum, who shouted verbal abuse at the guard. More arson takes place and is recorded on video. Someone with identical features to Rittenhouse – having the same build, clothing, and rifle; and also wearing brown shoes, blue gloves, and an orange medical kit – is then seen running with a fire extinguisher. According to Rittenhouse's defense attorneys, the person with the fire extinguisher was indeed Rittenhouse, and what was not recorded on video was that he used it to put out one of the fires, which provoked a confrontation from Rosenbaum, who mistook Rittenhouse for the guard who had put out the dumpster fire earlier.

These are the facts of the case, and not your assumption that Rosenbaum was just running after him to disarm him, as you were claiming earlier. It's published into record.

What's not any kind of "fact" is the claim that Rosenbaum was rushing at Rittenhouse for putting out a fire, whether he'd identified Rittenhouse correctly or not. So no; you're not just listing off facts. I've removed the emphases you put into the above and made my own, just to highlight where you've made a statement that is not "fact", at all. This is not out of any desire to edit your words or phrasing, I simply felt this is the easiest way to communicate this point.

You don't get to insert suggestions and guesswork into a list of facts and then claim you're just talking about the facts. C'mon.

I'm skipping the rest of the post because you're relying on appeals to emotion rather than reason. I've already addressed those points and if you don't have a real counterargument, I'm not going to continue going back-and-forth on them.

[Fincayra]

What's not any kind of "fact" is the claim that Rosenbaum was rushing at Rittenhouse for putting out a fire, whether he'd identified Rittenhouse correctly or not. So no; you're not just listing off facts. I've removed the emphases you put into the above and made my own, just to highlight where you've made a statement that is not "fact", at all. This is not out of any desire to edit your words or phrasing, I simply felt this is the easiest way to communicate this point.

You don't get to insert suggestions and guesswork into a list of facts and then claim you're just talking about the facts. C'mon.

I'm skipping the rest of the post because you're relying on appeals to emotion rather than reason. I've already addressed those points and if you don't have a real counterargument, I'm not going to continue going back-and-forth on them.

I didn't make any statements about that at all, that's Wikipedia's quote. I mean, you can continue to state they aren't facts, but I guess that's why we have the term "alternative facts," because we have the truth, and then we have what you believe. Guess I'll go back to being a white supremacist, since that's the only reason I could have for being against you on this issue, from your own post. Get lost dude. "Appeal to emotion".... Don't make me laugh.

[Endus]

I didn't make any statements about that at all, that's Wikipedia's quote.

For which they cite Rittenhouse's defense team, which has every reason to lie, and Tucker fucking Carlson.

See, that's the thing; I check sources.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Dude killed three people in cold blood. I suspect right wingers are defending him because what they see is some kind of vigilante justice. But for as much as conservatives worship the ground billionaires walk on, Rittenhouse is no batman, and he should spend the rest of his life in pound-me-in-the-ass prison, because death is too good for him.