Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Things aren't nearly as rosy for Rittenhouse as that. The only person who was shot and survived just testified, and (despite media reports to the contrary) makes it pretty clear that he was no real threat at the time.

"I thought that the defendant was an active shooter," he said. "Anytime you bring a firearm into that equation, the stakes are much higher for both serious injury and death."

As he approached, Rittenhouse was confronted by Anthony Huber, who struck him with a skateboard. Rittenhouse shot Huber in the chest, killing the-26 year-old.

Grosskreutz had drawn his gun, holding the pistol in his right hand and his cellphone in his left. He testified that he did not draw the gun "with the express intent of using it" but rather to be "ready" if he felt that it was necessary.

Then, Rittenhouse turned his rifle on Grosskreutz. Asked what he thought at that moment, Grosskreutz replied, "that I was going to die."

Video evidence shows Grosskreutz stopping and raising his hands, his pistol pointing in the air. Grosskreutz testified that he saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber.

"In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot," Grosskreutz testified. "I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don't know ... wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don't know ... I do know that I was never trying to kill the defendant."

Of equal importance, the guy who owns the car dealership that Rittenhouse was "defending" has testified that he did not authorize any defense. Which removes the main fig leaf the defense is using. Meanwhile, surveilance footage shows Rittenhouse chasing down a fleeing victim and arguably shooting him in the back.

[nenjin]

I dunno. Consider American juries. The fact anyone was brandishing a weapon there besides Rittenhouse will be enough to convince those looking to be convinced that it was an "equal contest." (Because armed confrontations between citizens is exactly the fantasy world some are living in right now.)

Once that basic criterion is established, it will be used as the logical justification for what came after and the "heat of the moment." We've reached the point in America where someone choosing to go to to an unstable situation with a weapon and looking to be a hero is going to be afforded an unreasonable amount of forgiveness for heinous things they did along the way by some segment of the population. Sorta how cops get a pass for shooting innocent bystanders in shootouts because of "the pressure they're under." I would not be at all surprised if his defense tries to paint him in the same light. That anyone killed was collateral damage and it's acceptable given what was happening at the time. Even though the idea that one guy's life and his decision to get involved somehow has more legal and ethical weight than the many he unjustly killed sickens me.

"In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot," Grosskreutz testified. "I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don't know ... wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don't know ... I do know that I was never trying to kill the defendant."

This really isn't going to do it. There's a riot, there's weapons on both sides, both sides are brandishing, physical violence has already happened, someone has already been shot. It's a chaotic situation and what was in people's minds at the time cannot generally be known, and will be nigh on impossible to prove given everything going on at that scene.

Because yeah, once you're in a gun fight chances are the untrained are going to shoot anything that moves. Particularly if that thing has a firearm. The vigilante has no responsibility to anything except their own sense of self-preservation and their own ideals. Which is why the whole idea of arming the entire US populace is just completely insane, for exactly this reason. Even if a "good guy with a gun" manages to prevent a crime because of their weapon, if they kill innocent bystanders in the process because it's complete chaos then their involvement is a fucking wash at worst and should be 3rd degree murder at best.

[Max™]

Who knew that, in highly-charged intense political situations, everyone walking around with guns and pointing them at each other leads to people getting shot.

Rittenhouse is an idiot and a provocateur for going somewhere looking for a gun fight, and the people he shot are idiots for bringing a gun to a destructive riot.

Throw them all in fucking prison.

The fuck are you talking about?

He shot people protesting, HE brought a gun and tried to incite a riot and murdered people.

[SOLDIER First]

protesting is actually threatening violence, to which the only appropriate response is murder

[nenjin]

Who knew that, in highly-charged intense political situations, everyone walking around with guns and pointing them at each other leads to people getting shot.

Rittenhouse is an idiot and a provocateur for going somewhere looking for a gun fight, and the people he shot are idiots for bringing a gun to a destructive riot.

Throw them all in fucking prison.

The fuck are you talking about?

He shot people protesting, HE brought a gun and tried to incite a riot and murdered people.

At one point, he was chased into a used car lot by Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, who threw a plastic bag at Mr. Rittenhouse. Mr. Rittenhouse fatally shot Mr. Rosenbaum and ran away, in the direction of the armored vehicles where police officers and National Guardsmen were stationed. Several members of the crowd pursued Mr. Rittenhouse and he shot two of them, killing Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, who was 26 at the time.

That is what he claims. What are you claiming, exactly?

[SOLDIER First]

At one point, he was chased into a used car lot by Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, who threw a plastic bag at Mr. Rittenhouse.

Oh shit, my bad. Didn't know one of those thugs had a plastic bag on him. With a weapon as dangerous as that it's no wonder poor Kyle had to utilize his (comparatively ineffective) Smith & Wesson M&P15 semiautomatic rifle in what is clearly justifiable self-defense.

[Andux]

I've seen people claiming that the bag was on fire, but I'm about 90% that's bullshit.

Spoiler: On the Origin of Bullshit by Means of Optical Phenomena, and the Preservation of Favored Assumptions in the Struggle for Truth (click to show/hide)

In the footage I saw of the bag being thrown, there was a trash fire in the background. A typical shopping bag is made of translucent plastic, and would tend to act like a diffuser when backlit, appearing bright against the dark background. I can easily imagine some MAGA chucklefuck starting with the assumption that the bag is opaque, concluding that bright = fire, and just never questioning their whether their initial assumptions might be wrong.

Anyway, I came across a pretty decent breakdown of the timeline of the shootings over on the Reddits.

[Micro102]

If someone reaches you and grabs your gun, they suddenly have a very deadly weapon. And considering there were testimonies of Rosenbaum saying that he was going to kill Rittenhouse, I don't see this not being declared as self defense.

The real problem here is that any gun-nut could imitate this. Bring a loaded rifle to protests, get in people's faces, and if any of the hundreds of protestors happens to chase you, you get an excuse to use your gun. There should be SOME legal repercussions.

[Starver]

I could see some sort of high-order culpability. - If he insists he was just doing the authorities' work for them, Gross Negligence In Office, perhaps(!)


Anyway, don't diss the plastic bags as weapons. They can kill turtles, and turtles are armed with various blades and fighting staffs!

[LordBaal]

Throw them all in fucking prison.

This. All people involved went out looking for blood, all for the wrong reasons. They knew very well what they were doing or going to do. All of them, going out to a protest armed, even if just with a stick or a stone, were idiots going out with the intention of killing their countrymen, their people, their own brothers, just for some fucker politicians exacerbating people for their own ends.

Two wrongs dont make a right, ever.

[Frumple]

That's a position to hold if you want to criminalize all protests and most large gatherings forever, I guess. There's always some armed folks in those, plus it drops the amount of evidence cops need to plant to arrest a group of people down to basically nothing, which would no doubt have them cheerfully salivating.

I'd probably be more comfortable just criminalizing murder and whatnot, ha.

[LordBaal]

 Im not against protests frumple, as you migth know or not, I participated in my fair share of them here.

I'm against going out in the streets armed with the intention of killing an stranger.

[nenjin]

Lord Baal articulated it for me. People were there to fight. That doesn't excuse Rittenhouse, but it doesn't necessarily absolve anyone else either. Everyone brandishing a weapon there deserves to be in jail because they all helped contribute to what happened. Rittenhouse is simply King Shit of Poop Mountain.

From that Reddit post:

    unknown gunshot is fired in air
    Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse and attempted to take his rifle. Kyle kills him.
    Kyle runs to secondary location (about 10 minutes pass)
    Kyle falls on ground, is kicked by a man.
    Kyle shoots at the man twice, but misses
    Anthony Huber hits Kyle with a skateboard and tries to take his gun
    Kyle kills him.
    Gaige Grosskreutz approaches Kyle.
    Kyle points gun at Gaige but does not shoot.
    Kyle turns away
    Gaige draws gun and points at Kyle.
    Kyle shoots him (but not killing him)
    Kyle runs away

By the time the last victim was shot, shit was already wildly out of hand, and Rittenhouse had already been assaulted and killed someone. At this point it's like trying to prosecute someone for what they did in a combat situation. Except he's a civilian and he chose to be there.

Like I said. He deserves to be in jail. As do many of the other people there. But he did not roll up on a peaceful protest and open fire, which is how some people are trying to paint this.

[SOLDIER First]

Maybe simply refrain from bringing a lethal weapon to a peaceful protest in the first place. What moron introduces the possibility of deadly force to a peaceful demonstration for no reason and then plays the victim when this inevitably results in someone else’s death?

[nenjin]

Maybe simply refrain from bringing a lethal weapon to a peaceful protest in the first place. What moron introduces the possibility of deadly force to a peaceful demonstration for no reason and then plays the victim when this inevitably results in someone else’s death?

This can unironically be applied to both sides.