Kyle Rittenhouse

When I read descriptions about him fleeing across state lines, that is what I thought.

Granted, yes, he did cross state lines, but he also turned himself in. ... This isn't like O.J. Simpson having a disguise ready and leading police on a chase.

I am not surprised that he "fled". Like I said to ILikePie, he was attacked WHILE he was running to the police line.

He definitely should have left the area because he probably would have been killed had he stayed. 

I thought it was a molotov cocktail too, but it was a plastic bag with an item inside of it that gave it some weight. You can see it more closely in one of the videos. It only looks like a molotov cocktail because the overhead light is bright and reflecting off the white plastic, and the camera is probably adjusted for night time.

Alright, I guess I'd have to get a closer look at the video. I also saw what looked like him being fired at by a pistol right around that time. What is your opinion of the case?

The first shooting it was difficult to see the unarmed man chasing, and the plastic bag with the object being thrown, as being together sufficient justification. Thett pointed out that it was plausibly that first gunshot that changed things, and I think he was right. After the bag was thrown, there was the errant gunshot in to the air, and almost immediately after is when Rittenhouse turned around and fired 4 shots. You can see in the video that Rittenhouse was not looking behind him when the shot was fired. I wanted to know where it was because you can sort of tell what direction a shot is coming from when you hear it. If you take both videos of the first shooting you can find the guy. I plotted them on google earth and roughly positions of people based on videos. Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, and the guy who fired the errant gunshot form an almost straight line. So, to Rittenhouse, it would have sounded like the guy who threw the object had opened fire. Given his obvious hostile intent, I don't think this would be an unreasonable conclusion.

Anyway, I have an upload here so you can see what I'm talking about. https://i.imgur.com/2M33geO.jpg

I mean, the chase, throwing the weighted plastic bag, and then the gunshot coming from that direction all taken together... if I was on a jury I don't see how I couldn't vote to acquit. The second shooting is clearly self defense.

Yeah, I think that being chased by a violent mob would make it difficult to fault him for much of what occurred.

The second shooting is certainly justified, but I'm wondering if they found the first to be unjustified that they would say that the next two were trying to make a citizen's arrest. While that obviously(to us at least) wasn't the case, they could pretend that they were doing just that and that it was simply a stupid decision on their part that ended badly.

Good graphic btw.

Well, the angry mob said things leading up to the attack on Rittenhouse that make it objectively clear that their intention was very likely not to perform a citizen's arrest. "Get him! Get that dude! Fuck him! Get his ass!" etc.

But I'm wondering how the legality might change if they determined that he was guilty of murder for the first guy. Would he then be charged for the other ones by default?

It may have an impact in that respect. I did some digging through Wisconsin statutes and case law and listened to some attorney video on the case. Though, if he's guilty of the first one, it's sort of moot as to whether or not he's guilty of the second. I mean, what's a murder conviction when you're already convicted of murder? It doesn't make it much worse.

Anyway, it'd be a lot of work to go figure that one out. Though, I'd direct you to the following resources as a starting point if you'd like to investigate it - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMmCAbJT6U0

I would think that it would matter. He may get 20 years for just the one depending on what degree he would be convicted of. Now with two murders and one attempted murder, you're probably going in for life.

Thanks for digging into that, I'll give that link a gander later.

Yeah, it could matter in that way at a sentencing. He's got a lot of years to go.

Also to be clear, I think he is somewhat justified, but there's issues legality wise that puts him in trouble. 

tl;dr: this was blown out of proportion than it should've been. I think it's a way for the left to label the typical Trump supporter. While I would say self defense, in my state, a kid was charged with second degree murder when he was getting beat up on the ground by a group of people, where he pulled out a knife and stabbed the kid in the stomach and peacefully surrendered. I asked the question then, why would you feel the need to carry a knife around. I think of the same thing thought in my opinion because he knew he was going to Kenosha to defend stores, but didn't do research about the policies in Illinois and getting a Wisconsin license. I'm pro state, so I am for what the state says in general.

I also note that gun > skateboard. A skateboard can hurt, but a gun is lethal. Not to mention he was in a 1v1 combat

Takeaway: This is a reason why police shouldn't be defunded, but reformed 

Woah woah woah woah. Have you seen the video? You said some things that were clearly false.

A gun is obviously more powerful than a skateboard, but that in no way limits your ability to defend yourself. A skateboard can easily kill you. This is a 17 year old kid getting hit with a hard piece of wood in the head wielded by a fully grown adult. You can simply be punched or kicked to death, so saying a skateboard isn’t a lethal weapon is just silly.

Second, this was not 1v1 combat, he was being chased by a large mob. He was attacked by multiple foes while on the ground: one who charged him with a gun and one who hit him with a skateboard. He ONLY shot people directly attacking him.

As for that case in your state, I would need all of the facts. Had he started the conflict with some form of aggression, I could see it being a murder charge. If it was a school or something where a knife is in no way needed, maybe as well. As for why you would need to carry a knife: for the exact reason he did. He was attacked, and you should always carry a weapon just in case. 

And you can’t believe that every state will follow what yours did. Some black kids killed a 52 year old because they wouldn’t give him a dollar. The one that threw the fatal punch, guess what he got. Anger management and probation!

He resided in my state, therefore he is accountable to the law of the state regarding guns. He is under the legal age to own a gun and have a license to own it in his state. Therefore he did something illegaly

I think it was some form of self defense in my opinion, as I stated. It’s a muddy self defense, but it is still self defense. I reviewed everything. I know I said that, but from a technicality prospective, he did something illegal without a doubt. The whole first half of what he did is wrong, the defending himself is clear. 

he was a 30 minute drive away anyway to supposedly protect a family business, he was past curfew because the rioters were still there

it was self defense

Yes, he has been charged with violating the Wisconsin age restriction on carrying a firearm. Ownership of the weapon and the where and how he came in to possession of it aren't clear to me. The incident represents an escalation of things, and the Trump supporters' caravan through Portland and the later shooting today may represent further escalation. I think deescalating things, patience, and giving the courts a chance to do their jobs is the direction everyone should be taking rather than rioting and putting themselves in to situations which are likely to result in violence and further escalation.

I respect Kyle Rittenhouse's foolish idealism, more than I respect the rioters foolish idealism.

Seems like self defense to me, though I don't think he should have been there in the first place,

I think his real hurdles are going to be related to the state laws he broke in carrying that gun not registered to him as a 17 year old.

Maybe I'm just not patriotic enough, but these mixed bags militia groups seem pretty darn stupid to me.

Still, what are you going to get if you defund the police.

I suppose I can understand a militia if it was a community where everyone agreed, but that doesn't seem likely in a city. Gated community would have better luck, and only 'in the gated community.

I also think he got lucky with the histories of the people he shot.

Seems likely to turn some of the public opinion towards him positively.

totally agree, well said

It seems like Kyle will have even more opportunity for a libel lawsuit against fake news like Nick Sandman.

Yeah, there's probably going to be a lot of defamation lawsuits. Ayanna Pressley should probably be sued for https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egb7hTbXcAA28md.jpg

While most politicians don't sue each other for libel because it's simply not worth the time and the hassle and it is usually counterproductive, Kyle isn't a politician.

Pressley probably fucked up with that tweet.

Fuck this kid Kyle Rittenhouse. Just saw a video of him beating a women. 

To be clear, the evidence suggests it's him due to glasses, body frame, and crocs. I'm like 70% certain it's him.

Putting your hands on a women is disgraceful and shameful. Never going to support him now

Video link?

That's what German people must have said about Hitler back in the day.

All conservatives together hey!

Shittenhouse Rittenhouse, Mein Fuhrer.

I don't really care about Kyle Rittenhouse. I care more about rushing to judgment and the distortion of facts for political purposes, which seems to happen often with these police incidents. (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/ ) This is one of the main reasons I don't like BLM.

BLM organization is not a good organization that uses black lives for political gain. The movement I see is "all lives matter, but fighting for equality."