I agree, even 14 years old, it was just a personal opinion on small grey areas, not what law says
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Wow, Did not expect legal scholars defending Rittenhouse because of arcane legal points. Reading the posts by Drainy listing off defence after defence saying the guy knows Kenosha because of his forefathers and how he's only interested in the "legality" of the issue. Alright then, set aside the legal precedents, what do you think in your heart about Rittenhouse? For a guy who shot protesters, do you think he's guilty of anything then?
I have another interpretation of the videos. For me the "friendly, friendly, friendly" (we could quibble also on the medical medical also) shows that at least his intentions where not hyper aggressive as to provoke conflict. If he would be the only AR-15 in the streets those days I could understand, but the situation was so feck up than in US seems that they are quite ok seeing this shit around and more those days.
Anyway, I will keep repeating my self. My interpretation is that it was a alt-right moron vigilante in a normalized situation those days and that the other ones knew what was going on and apparently they wanted to get him also, so it was a mixture of moronity and people looking for trouble everywhere (I would stay home, frankly). Murder should be taken out of the equation for sure. About the reckless charges, then you should charge the entire US population that went out to the streets those days. It was a disaster bound to happen and I don't think than Rittenhouse, for his demeanor and his wording wanted to reach at any point an armed conflict.
Is of course a matter of interpretation, so I will not going round and round with the same
I've said already, he's guilty of curfew violation and illegal possession because they are on the face of it true and no evidence can overturn that, especially since the possession was only in doubt due to a point of law that the judge has now make his judgement on.
I think he is silly for his actions with posting 'blue lives matter' and hitting a woman, even in defence of his sister and naïve at least for posing with Proud Boys, even though they were a good source of legal defence funding and bond, though many in his situation would be temped to do the same.
He was wrong to go there that night since he was 17 and unable to own a gun, which would be necessary for self defence given the risks.
The evidence and testimony has been that he was there to help so its hard to sit like a keyboard warrior condemning someone who was trying to help his community, and was also assisting protesters who were hurt while he was there.
If an aggressive and unstable man who threatened to kill me was chasing after me, was within 4 feet running full pelt and lunging towards me, I'd wish I had a gun to kill the cnut, to be fair.
From the evidence so far (though I have missed the last few hours of today's testimony so could have been changed with evidence provided today), he was acting in justifiable self defence on weight of evidence against Rosenbaum, and beyond all reasonable doubt with Huber and Grosskreutz. Jump Kick Man, reckless discharge I'll need to hear more evidence. Other reckless discharges are not valid due to self defence at the time of firing, though the one McGinnis will need evidence about time between first and last shot.
I find it hard to accept an argument of self defence when you armed yourself illegally, and then travelled to knowingly put yourself into the midst of an emotionally charged environment when you openly carried said illegal firearm which would clearly intimidate people you came into contact with.
To do all that and then claim it’s their fault for instigating the situation is just laughable.
But, ‘Murica.
To do all that and then claim it’s their fault for instigating the situation is just laughable.
But, ‘Murica.
You clearly don't give a shit about the facts of the Rosenbaum shooting then
Somehow you seem to dismiss any questionable stuff by Rittenhouse as "silly" or even necessary for "defense fund", including hitting a woman and associating with violent, alt right gangs. You also think a young guy of just 17, carrying an illegal assault rifle was there to help out his community in spite of no request for help delivered in person to this guy but the unstable man was the protester.
You straight up justify killing a man even if the other guy was unstable and aggressive by someone who didn't even need to be there and weirdly get a dig in about the keyboard warriors who never decided to help out a community? So never mind all this supposed innocence based on legality of American law, you straight up think Rittenhouse was just being silly but justified in killing a man, even though he never needed to be there in the first place, followed the crowd when he didn't need to, probably acted the big bully because he had the assault rifle in his hands?
You think such an inexperienced guy who had no training whatsoever in crowd control or any similar field being present with an assault rifle at a place of protest is just being silly? And there is no consequence (let's forget legality here, just consider moral consequences) for inserting himself in such an inflammable situation in the first place?
I used to live near Naperville, IL and would drive at least every other month to Door County, WI so I know the travel involved here and the effort needed to take an illegal assault rifle across state border.
Does it change any of the stuff you deleted from my post?
Also, this is the guy he shot 4 times, including once in the back, right?
- he was silly for slapping the woman because he was defending his sister, if he had been the aggressor my language would have been firmer
- the gun was legally owned by his over age friend, who held it in trust for him with a view to giving it to him when he turned 18, 3 months after the shootings
- this is the person who you are trusting to say he was uninvited
- he was with a group of people who had a buddy system and got separated
- I'd say its silly to go to one of those protests for any reason unarmed in case someone like Rosenbaum turns up
defence says all within .7 seconds - we'll see if the evidence proves that
Weren't you arguing earlier that 17 is 17? That three months means nothing by your own criteria.
Jesus Christ
Anyway, some would ask if Kyle Rittenhouse and his rifle had stayed home would any of these people be dead? Probably not. This action is the root cause of what eventually occurred.
Precisely.
Legally I agree. Which is why he'll be found guilty. The gun was not illegal, his possession of the gun was illegal by 3 months
At least, there is no pretense now with Drainy posting on and on about him concerned with legal fine points of the case. The guy thinks Rittenhouse is well justified in killing the aggressor here, even though he may have been childishly silly in some things, it's alright in the end because he acted in good faith in trying to protect a community that was in another state (one that he may have some relatives)
Illegal is illegal, whether one day or three months. His friend might have some legal jeopardy (at least civilly) for providing an under-aged person with a firearm, as well. The US is very litigious.
Rosenbaum may still have been involved in an incident. He was observed being aggressive to many people including protesters. If he cornered the wrong person he may have had a similar result.
The amount of mental gymnastics here... Legally/illegally/just 3 months/possession/not an illegal gun etc.
and I agreed. The other poster was also speaking non-legally
you were the one who was asking about non-legally
The amount of mental gymnastics here... Legally/illegally/just 3 months/possession/not an illegal gun etc.
It's possible but if Rittenhouse had stayed home, he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he felt the need to shoot anyone.
Yes I did. At least at first, you seem to be posting "strictly from a legal side of things". I wanted to know what you thought of the situation outside legal boundaries. You have made it clear that in both cases, you think Rittenhouse didn't commit a serious crime, just 3 months here or there. I wanted to know the motivation of your posts and now I think I see your side of it.
Illegal by 3 months
. Sorry officer, I know you've caught me drink driving, but if you stopped me in 5 hours I would have been sober.We can agree on that.
At 17 he wasn't legally able to possess a firearm and shouldn't have been there because he wouldn't be able to be armed and would need to be because the risk caused by people like Rosenbaum.
Except there were millions protesting across several months in probably over a hundred different cities and we didn't see thousands or even hundreds of shootings. So clearly things were different here. Even in just this one location that night, you had another armed militia member who actually had experience and training encounter the victim and testify that he did not feel threatened by him and felt he was just a "babbling idiot." Rottenhouse's own buddy who traveled with him posted himself up on a rooftop and testified he felt no need to shoot anyone.
You're right that this was a disaster waiting to happen but that's what happens when a 17-year-old with no training, no life experience that clearly values random property over human life decided to illegally arm himself with an AR-15 and recklessly wade around the middle of a known, emotionally charged situation that he had no training to actually operate safely and effectively. He had ample opportunity to de-escalate by simply not following. I discount his alleged cries of "friendly" because he already had acted recklessly before that point was reached. Actions matter here more than words.
Last edited:
He went a very long way to insert himself into a situation where tensions were already very high and where it would take very little to set off a complete disaster. No training whatsoever, 17, showing up visibly armed with an assault rifle, at a protest where you are perceived to be a part of the problem. It should be fairly obvious that you’re increasing the risks of confrontation, and that the likelyhood of a bad outcome was more likely than a positive outcome, where any altercation would likely end up with someone being seriously hurt. Rittenhouser just made everything worse simply by being there with an assault rifle, running around, creating a dangerous situation everywhere he went. Arguing self-defense when you’ve put yourself, and others, in that situation, it’s quite frankly bizarre, and his actions could have very easily set off a much larger disaster. It’s the precise reason you don’t want people showing up like that.
@oneniltothearsenal have you accepted that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse yet? Even TYT have withdrawn their comments about Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum
Honestly, any other country he'd wouldn't stand a chance of self defense probably
Have you accepted that Rittenhouse was pursuing the victim before the victim did anything to Rittenhouse?
did the state's witness who watched all of the videos and pieced the chronology for the prosecution testify to that? or did he actually refute that characterisation directly during his testimony?
Another thing to consider is that Rittenhouse's appearance would conform to a type that would clearly stand out in those protests as a reactionary force (if we assume the majority of rioters are revolutionaries, for discussion purposes at least) making him easily identifiable as an outsider and, combined with the presence of the rifle, a clear and obvious threat.
This goes back to the duty to retreat statutes I posted earlier where Rittenhouse's presence may have provoked others to attack him potentially removing his privilege to exercise self-defence.
This goes back to the duty to retreat statutes I posted earlier where Rittenhouse's presence may have provoked others to attack him potentially removing his privilege to exercise self-defence.
So your opinion is that Rittenhouse never followed and pursued the victim?
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8CweLNx/
Seen this but no idea what it means or who was even answering the questions
Seen this but no idea what it means or who was even answering the questions
The guy who got shot in the arm while pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse, I believe.
There were some altercations throughout the night between protesters and the armed individuals, but they were always verbal. There were some aggressive exchanges when they started putting out fires but again it was always verbal.
The moment that kicked it off was the first shot by Joshua Ziminski, who fired after saying to Rittenhouse "you won't do shit motherfecker" as he pulled his gun.
He was coordinating with Rosenbaum, who again had been acting hyper aggressive beyond what any of the other protesters were and had threatened Rittenhouse's life according to one of the other armed individuals.
After Rittenhouse flees once Rosenbaum ambushes him, he gets to a gap between two cars that were a bit of an obstacle and stops as he hears the shot from Ziminski, turns around and sees that Rosenbaum is within 4 feet according to the coroner (and his arms pointed towards the gun), and lunging while screaming 'feck you!!'.
The time difference between the first shot from Ziminski and the Rosanbaum shooting is less than 3 seconds.
He shot after attempting to flee, then fled and only shot again once on the floor and being attacked and while he was fleeing he was taped telling people he was running to the police before people started attacking him on the main road.
The only thing that wasn't taped was the exact moment of the Rosenbaum shooting, but noone denies that Ziminski shot first.
It would be like saying walking behind the person walking in front on you on the street while walking to work is pursuing them.
Yes, being there looking like a MAGA terrorist armed with an AR-15 was going to provoke strong reactions from people who were rioting against systemic racism.
And the only white person recorded and testified as calling people the n word that night was Rosenbaum
This is very selective cherry-picking of what happened. It ignores the fact that Rittenhouse was following the group for quite some time, at least a block or two while visibly carrying his AR-15 in a ready position. Then, even as you acknowledged earlier in the thread Rittenhouse then accelerates towards the victim (pursuit from what I see on the video). It's only after this initial action that many, including myself, would deem threatening and provocative that the victim ducks between two cars and then initially charges at Rittenhouse.
But it's Rittenhouse's insistence on pursuing the victims up until the point that Rosemblaum ducks between the cars that is clearly reckless and provocative behavior. Rittenhouse could have stopped at any time and simply allowed the group to move on and nothing would have happened.
You are also adding in details that are not actually proven as fact. Personally, I don't trust The Daily Caller guy and I would not take his statements as fact considering how eyewitness testimony can skew on recollection and his own inherent biases. At least you should say "allegedly" there because it's not on video.
And again, this shows a major flaw in US law. Had Rosemblaum killed Rittenhouse, he could easily have claimed he felt threatened by Rittenhouse pursuing him and only charged out of self-defense.