Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Krakan]

exceptionally solid way to prove endus correct, by doing the same thing he called you out on doing as your response.



it wasn't self defense, you don't get to initiate with threatening people by pointing a gun at them then cry "self defense" as you murder them.

One prove it.

Two I'm not really sure that is a reasonable response... charging a gunman is escalating the situation when you can simply wave over one of the officers.

[Elegiac]

Seems we've now completely ignored that this kid killed someone and have now made him an innocent that was being assaulted by a mob. Interesting.

Remember, we can't assume what Rittenhouse was thinking because reasons but Krakan and Specialka have some sort of magic telepathy that lets them know exactly what the intentions of Rosenbaum and the other protesters were.

[Krakan]

And nothing I said did anything of the sort. What, exactly, is your point?

Also, I'll repeat that question; is your first language not English? This is an honest ask, I'm not trying to be nasty or something. I speak a few languages other than English but I'm crap at all of them, so I wouldn't want to crap on someone else's grasp of English if it's their second or third language.



Nothing I have said would suggest this. You're making this up, because a straw man argument is so much easier to attack than what I've actually said.

Then what is it you are trying to say be precise please. Starting with the first video the entire chain of events kick off because kyle was the victim of an assault. That isn't up for debate. It might of been a provoked assualt we don't know that but it was an assault regardless. Accepting that as the starting point every action after until that second video ends is self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems we've now completely ignored that this kid killed someone and have now made him an innocent that was being assaulted by a mob. Interesting.

No one is ignoring the outcome. As tragic as these events played out it is important to not blame the victim.

[Elegiac]

Then what is it you are trying to say be precise please. Starting with the first video the entire chain of events kick off because kyle was the victim of an assault. That isn't up for debate. It might of been a provoked assualt we don't know that but it was an assault regardless. Accepting that as the starting point every action after until that second video ends is self defense.

The one in which it admits it was provoked assault while not realising that entirely negates the whinging about self-defense.

I figured y'all would be less eager to scream and point at videos after Project Veritas' shitsquillion time being debunked but here we are.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is ignoring the outcome. As tragic as these events played out it is important to not blame the victim.

Really? Cause you've been doing nothing but blaming the protesters here.

Also are you really going to pull the "why aren't you being more sympathetic" card when you've openly admitted a preference for sociopathic economic policies in other threads?

[Elegiac]

Wait, are you suggesting Rittenhouse is the victim in all this? The kid that killed people and injured another? The entire thing kicked off because he shot someone....

It's just a rehash of the same "BLM bad" crap we've seen all year.

Folks spend the entirety of their free time on social media be it Facebook, Youtube, or Twitch just consuming an endless stream of curated garbage designed to radicalise people into conspiracy theory mindsets in order to grift them for views or donations - hence why we see nothing but random video links and shitty opinion pieces by folks like Ian Miles Cheong as their supporting "evidence" - which then further isolates them into that sphere when the nonsense they start freely regurgitating drives anyone with half a brain far, far away.

This is how you get folks living in Sweden or France shilling for the Confederacy or repeating drivel about law enforcement that looks like it's come from a PragerU script; it's likely because it does, after a few messengers in between.

[Stormspellz]

One prove it.

Two I'm not really sure that is a reasonable response... charging a gunman is escalating the situation when you can simply wave over one of the officers.

thats not escalating the situation, POING A FUCKING GUN AT SOME ONE IS ESCULATING THE SITUATION

[Endus]

Then what is it you are trying to say be precise please. Starting with the first video the entire chain of events kick off because kyle was the victim of an assault. That isn't up for debate.

Where the hell did you get that idea?

He was chased. That's not automatically an assault. If a lady, hypothetically, drops their wallet, and I pick it up and start chasing her to give it back, am I assaulting her? That's ridiculous. If she shoots me for doing that, it isn't defensible.

You keep inserting elements that are not, and often cannot be, in the video evidence.

It might of been a provoked assualt we don't know that but it was an assault regardless.

If it was provoked by Rittenhouse's mishandling of his weapon, then it wasn't an assault, it was self defense.

So this is just incorrect.

Accepting that as the starting point every action after until that second video ends is self defense.

First, we shouldn't accept that as the starting point; see above.

Second, it does not mean every action is self defense. If you escalate to lethal force without a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, that's not self defense any more. Definitively, according to Wisconsin law. Section 939.48 (1)(1), the final sentence. https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...section-939.48

Just by way of very relevant example. The idea that one person committing a crime against you automatically means you can do whatever to them and it's lawful self defense is just bafflingly incorrect and it's been demonstrated as such time and again.

No one is ignoring the outcome. As tragic as these events played out it is important to not blame the victim.

From someone who spends most of their arguments blaming the victims. Rittenhouse wasn't a victim of any crime at any point in any of the videos.

[draynay]

One prove it.

It was your claim... your inability to back up that claim is no one else's burden.

[Xyonai]

Okay let's lay out the events in plain terms for a sec:

Rittenhouse - by witness testimony - was pointing a gun at people. He may never have even had the intent to shoot, but no one around him could've known that.

Rosenbaum takes it upon himself to try and aggressively Approach Rittenhouse, who begins to flee and then takes a firing position and kills Rosenbaum.

The crowd reacts as a crowd does when someone starts shooting and goes into a panic. Two others approach Rittenhouse to try and subdue him as the crowd around them calls him out for shooting someone.

One's killed, the other's maimed.

Rittenhouse then approaches a police line - hand still on his weapon, mind you - and is flagged away by an officer on duity rather than taken in, despite the protest crowed continuing to call him out for shooting now-three people.

Rittenhouse ditches his gun with the guy he illigally bought it from, returns home, and only turns himself in after the arrest warrent is made public.

Now, with that sequence of events in mind: Is Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense still valid in the case of the two others who he shot? For all anyone knew he just killed someone and was trying to run away. Do his claims of self-defense still stand when he flees back to his home, rather than turn himself in, while also ditching the murder-weapon? And even further back, is he still able to claim self-defense when he posed threateningly with a lethal weapon at bystanders?

If anyone wants to add or clarify anything, be my guest, but the discussions are going in circles and I feel like some clarification would be in order so we can either get off on the right foot, or more properly ignore people for obvious bad faith posting.

[pathora44]

Okay let's lay out the events in plain terms for a sec:

Rittenhouse - by witness testimony - was pointing a gun at people. He may never have even had the intent to shoot, but no one around him could've known that.

Rosenbaum takes it upon himself to try and aggressively Approach Rittenhouse, who begins to flee and then takes a firing position and kills Rosenbaum.

The crowd reacts as a crowd does when someone starts shooting and goes into a panic. Two others approach Rittenhouse to try and subdue him as the crowd around them calls him out for shooting someone.

One's killed, the other's maimed.

Rittenhouse then approaches a police line - hand still on his weapon, mind you - and is flagged away by an officer on duity rather than taken in, despite the protest crowed continuing to call him out for shooting now-three people.

Rittenhouse ditches his gun with the guy he illigally bought it from, returns home, and only turns himself in after the arrest warrent is made public.

Now, with that sequence of events in mind: Is Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense still valid in the case of the two others who he shot? For all anyone knew he just killed someone and was trying to run away. Do his claims of self-defense still stand when he flees back to his home, rather than turn himself in, while also ditching the murder-weapon? And even further back, is he still able to claim self-defense when he posed threateningly with a lethal weapon at bystanders?

If anyone wants to add or clarify anything, be my guest, but the discussions are going in circles and I feel like some clarification would be in order so we can either get off on the right foot, or more properly ignore people for obvious bad faith posting.

Oooh I know I know. Rittenhouse was there with an illegal gun since it was against the law to have the weapon at all. He was also out there illegally due to the curfew in effect by the city and finally he illegally pointed his loaded illegal gun at bystanders which is also a crime. So Rittenhouse broke 3 laws before he killed a man. Man what a criminal breaking so many laws all in one night.

[Xyonai]

Oooh I know I know. Rittenhouse was there with an illegal gun since it was against the law to have the weapon at all. He was also out there illegally due to the curfew in effect by the city and finally he illegally pointed his loaded illegal gun at bystanders which is also a crime. So Rittenhouse broke 3 laws before he killed a man. Man what a criminal breaking so many laws all in one night.

Oh yeah also all that, don't know why I didn't put that on the timeline of events.

[shimerra]

Oh yeah also all that, don't know why I didn't put that on the timeline of events.

Best part is people like @Krakan have mentioned the records of the people Kyle murdered, like Kyle could have known their records as he was shooting them or like that gives the tinniest bit of justification for his acts, while also ignoring the literal multiple laws/rules Kyle was breaking by simply being there at all before we even get to the shooting and fleeing a crime scene.

[postman1782]

Is he? Everything hes saying has to start with a maybe...

Maybe kyle was pointing a gun at people.

Maybe his attacker had noble intentions for chasing someone down fleeing from him

Maybe a mob were trying to citizen arrest a victim of assault

It's a lot of maybes that I just don't offer in my reasoning

Yeah, no, Endus is still the one with facts.

And there is no "maybe" he was pointing a gun at people. Two witnesses have already given statements of it.

Rosenbaum was well within his rights to disarm Rittenhouse after he broke the law in front of him.

And so were the other people that tried to disarm him that Rittenhouse killed.

[cubby]

Best part is people like @Krakan have mentioned the records of the people Kyle murdered, like Kyle could have known their records as he was shooting them or like that gives the tinniest bit of justification for his acts, while also ignoring the literal multiple laws/rules Kyle was breaking by simply being there at all before we even get to the shooting and fleeing a crime scene.

Precisely - and such a solid and important point.

[postman1782]

Because there is no point debating here as it is mostly an echo chamber ?

Says the guy that is ignorant of US law, and probably EVERYTHING that led up to before the first shooting that was missed on the videos?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, sticking to facts is wrong now.

When you present any facts, we will let you know.

- - - Updated - - -

MMO-Champion is absolutely a leftist echo chamber. It has been for a very long time. I used to be a part of it until events that have transpired especially this year made me stop and think about things. I avoid the right as well, both of you are cringe as shit.

LOL, fucking hilarious. Wrong, but hilarious.

- - - Updated - - -

@Fincayra did a pretty good sum up while just sticking to the facts, and you dismissed it because it did not fit your views.

No, he absolutely didn't. Because we have 2 witnesses, including Tucker Carlson's shit rag the Daily Caller "reporter" said in a statement to the cops that Rittenhouse was mishandling his weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand your are steeped in ideology but if you don't see how a person assaulting someone in a self defense case is relevant...well you might be out of your depth.

Where was the assault? Literally NO ONE touched the dumb shit.

[Xyonai]

Best part is people like @Krakan have mentioned the records of the people Kyle murdered, like Kyle could have known their records as he was shooting them or like that gives the tinniest bit of justification for his acts, while also ignoring the literal multiple laws/rules Kyle was breaking by simply being there at all before we even get to the shooting and fleeing a crime scene.

Honestly I wanted the focus to remain on the self-defense claims, because the fact he was illegally armed is one of the few things no one who isn't actually braindead is disputing, but you also bring up a good point about the supposed omniscience of Rittenhouse that's not extended to the people who he shot or were around him when he started shooting.

[postman1782]

One prove it.

Two I'm not really sure that is a reasonable response... charging a gunman is escalating the situation when you can simply wave over one of the officers.

Charging him, after he had pointed his gun at someone, actually is a reasonable response, because pointing your gun at someone, that literally did nothing wrong, is AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW.

[Xyonai]

Where was the assault? Literally NO ONE touched the dumb shit.

The only devil's advocate I'll give to this claim is that we do have video/photo evidence of Rittenhouse being struck by a skateboard by one of the others who he shot, but that was after he'd already shot someone and tried to flee. But apparently shooting and killing someone is more excusable then hitting someone with what amounts to a plywood 2x4 to some folks.

[postman1782]

The only devil's advocate I'll give to this claim is that we do have video/photo evidence of Rittenhouse being struck by a skateboard by one of the others who he shot, but that was after he'd already shot someone and tried to flee. But apparently shooting and killing someone is more excusable then hitting someone with what amounts to a plywood 2x4 to some folks.

From the angles I have seen, the skateboard at best, grazed him, AFTER he had already murdered someone. But up until that situation, neither Rosenbaum, or anyone else ever touched him.

[Roxinius]

From the angles I have seen, the skateboard at best, grazed him, AFTER he had already murdered someone. But up until that situation, neither Rosenbaum, or anyone else ever touched him.

yet by eye witness acocunts he didnt murder the first guy /shrug