But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
In the context of being at a protest against extrajudicial murders of black folks, someone swinging a chain in the air and shouting doesn't really register as a threat. Someone actively pointing their gun at folks, an action that puts the target in mortal danger, is explicitly a threat. And him replying in the affirmative when asked if he was aiming his gun at folks, even if he actually wasn't, means they perceive him as a threat because he's admitting to actively putting people in mortal danger.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
I think anyone who can see a kid record a video about wanting to get his fash murder boner on and then believe he’s some innocent waif who did nothing to incite the incident is arguing in bad faith or a genuine fascist.
Or both.
The common thread in all the trolls showing up is that they are intentionally, willfully refusing to address this point. It wasn’t allowed in court but Rittenhouse absolutely got caught on a recording wanting to go kill folk. The fascists don’t argue that point because it’s a hard fact. They want to come here and talk about self-defense, how “it was only 20 minutes away from his house”, and how the victims were no angels.
There’s no practical difference between a fascist that proudly wears swastikas and calls themselves such and someone who refuses the label but bends themselves into rhetorical pretzels to defend the guy who hung out with Proud Boys, murdered people at a BLM rally, and was caught on video talking about how awesome said murders would be 15 days prior to the murders.
The Nazis had a grand old time for 4 years, with a president that refused to push them back into their dark, moldy holes. They got a taste of the good old days, so here they are, out in the light.
This is the fundamental problem with basically all of conservative "individual rights" movements is they are in a position to be the aggressor due to social standing, and want to use that to lord power over other peoples lives. And then they act like fucking crybabies when they aren't allowed to dictate what others can and cannot do.
You've taken my defense of individual sexual orientation and the expression thereof and somehow inverted it as though I were against it. Astounding mental gymnastics. Bravo.
You said that someone cannot be blamed for their state of mind if they see open affection between two men
That is absolutely NOT what I said. I said the homophobe's state of mind is not the responsibility of the gay couple. Your misunderstanding shows an astounding lack of reading comprehension.
Because they aren't involved with something that can kill them.
No, because an individual's rights are not subject to the feelings of others.
This statement rests on a deceptive framework. Constitutional rights bind the government, so while technically true, in practice the boundaries of our rights as they come into tension with the interests of society often rest on the feelings of others.
Example: Regardless of how you feel about Jesus, you still can’t discriminate against gay people trying to get married.
Often, conflicting rights come down to how two people feel, and which one of those feelings we’ve decided takes precedence.
If I told you that I was going to kill you, and then you ran away, and then I chased you, and then you killed me with that knife than you would be acting in self defense.
Not if you threatened with the knife first and never left knife engagement range.
Edit: apologies for the quote/submit. Phone posting makes selecting and editing harder
Edit2: if it feels like we’re going in circles it’s because we have been here before. You’re obligated to withdraw when you instigate for it to be self defense. But withdrawing means dropping your gun (or at the very least moving the gun to a position it cannot fire) A school shooter who still has their gun has not “withdrawn” and cannot claim self defense. There is no difference here. Rittenhouse cannot have withdrawn until he no longer had the weapon. After which he would be entitled to self defense.
Former labor Sec Robert Reich writes about the culture of political violence and the rejection of civil authority that binds issues like Rittenhouse, Bannon’s contempt of congress and Gosar’s recent threatening video edit in an interconnected system that is only growing stronger as no one holds any element of it accountible:
My friends, I don’t need to tell you we are living in a time of increasingly virulent politics and violent political threats, perpetrated largely in and by the Republican Party. The New York Times reports that at a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats. “When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a “fair” question.
According to the Times, violent threats against lawmakers are on track to double this year. Republicans who break party ranks and defy Trump have come to expect death threats — often fueled by their own colleagues who have denounced them as traitors.
Unless those at the highest levels of government who foment or encourage violence — or remain conspicuously silent as others do — are held accountable, no one in political life will be safe.
+18
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
It is, but we've been over this exhaustively earlier in the thread.
I think this is the actual image that the prosecution claims is Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Zaminsky before the chase began. The one the defense didn't want enlarged for fear of pixels being altered by the enlarging process.
When that's the best evidence anyone can provide of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone prior to the chase, I don't understand why there's even an argument.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
We have more evidence that Bigfoot exists than we do of Rittenhouse aiming his gun at people. Think about that when you talk about how it was perfectly justified for Rosenbaum to attack him based on "feeling threatened".
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I cannot think of a more laughable argument than trying to claim Kyle was not presenting an active threat. Vast majority of spree shooters in the USA are white dudes with assault rifles (whinge if you want - 100% fact). Turning up at a protest you had no reason to be other than to shoot people, with the stated intent to shoot people and then doing so makes you just another wanker in America’s history of mass shooters.
Can’t wait for the next spree shooter at a school to argue he was defending himself from a teachers board eraser so feared for his life.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
It's the white supremacist equivalent of tapping the butt of a pistol while it's in holster to get someone to react so you can murder them.
dispatch.o on
+9
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Honestly after digesting the trial, and knowing what the jury wasn't allowed to see, I feel:
1) the prosecution absolutely should have seen this coming and gone for lesser charges. Even having Rittenhouse in prison for two years would be something.
2) I honestly think the first death (Rosenbaum) was in self defense. I don't think self defense should be allowed based on the background evidence, but as per what's allowed in the trial, it's self defense. I think at least one or two of the jurors are going to feel deep regret after seeing the full news, and that takes me to...
3) I think we live in an internet age and the jurors are going to get doxxed and most of them don't know what that means. I really feel bad for the jurors.
4) The death of Huber and Rosenbaum and the injury of Grosskreutz are going to end up falling on the guy who bought the rifle (in civil court) when in reality, every charge after Rosenbaum should rest solely on the Kenosha police department and it should be defunded and rebuilt.
5) The Rittenhouse family should be liable for all civil charges and once their bankruptcy clears it should fall to the Kenosha government to pay the rest.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
It is, but we've been over this exhaustively earlier in the thread.
I think this is the actual image that the prosecution claims is Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Zaminsky before the chase began. The one the defense didn't want enlarged for fear of pixels being altered by the enlarging process.
When that's the best evidence anyone can provide of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone prior to the chase, I don't understand why there's even an argument.
You mean… besides Rittenhouse claiming that he did so and also told other people that he had not aimed at that he had aimed at the sure.
Now I mean sure he has an incentive to lie but not to tell that one. And it would be pretty weird to suddenly not believe him then simply because what he said was harmful to his case.
+5
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
You're moving the goalposts from "aiming a gun at someone is an instigation" to "sarcastically claiming to have aimed a gun at someone earlier in the night is an instigation"
This gets even worse when you consider that Rosenbaum, the party supposedly instigated, wasn't present for the event AFAICT.
So it turns into "sarcastically claiming to have aimed a gun at someone earlier in the night, then having that statement make its way to a 3rd party (hypothetically, no one has shown this happened), still counts as an instigation against that 3rd party significantly later in the night"
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
+1
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
We have more evidence that Bigfoot exists than we do of Rittenhouse aiming his gun at people. Think about that when you talk about how it was perfectly justified for Rosenbaum to attack him based on "feeling threatened".
You're completely wrong, and also a tremendous goose.
We have more evidence that Bigfoot exists than we do of Rittenhouse aiming his gun at people. Think about that when you talk about how it was perfectly justified for Rosenbaum to attack him based on "feeling threatened".
It’s always pretty fuckin lolsy when it spins back rounds to this bit cause the only reason Kyle got away with murdering 2 people is because he felt threatened.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Only if you’re trying to volunteer for an altercation because you’re walking around as an active threat to public safety.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
If a rifle isn’t a threat why are you worried about someone taking it from you?
+20
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
If you don’t think word about “ A random guy here at this protest is pointing his gun at people” would get around everyone there really fast, I don’t know what to tell you. Unless protestors are unable to communicate.
Sadly we will never know Rosenbaums logic because he’s dead.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
We have more evidence that Bigfoot exists than we do of Rittenhouse aiming his gun at people. Think about that when you talk about how it was perfectly justified for Rosenbaum to attack him based on "feeling threatened".
It’s always pretty fuckin lolsy when it spins back rounds to this bit cause the only reason Kyle got away with murdering 2 people is because he felt threatened.
"I felt threatened because a guy who had a gun was running away from me and I chased him and attacked him"
"I felt threatened because I was running away from someone and they continued to pursue me and then attacked me"
"I have the justification to kill you based on something you may or may not have said to someone else earlier this evening when I was not present, and you do not have the right to try to defend yourself while I kill you" is, actually, an asinine concept.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
It makes more sense to consider that a rifle is a bad choice in that kind of environment.
personal convenience is not a good measure of what should constitute brandishing. The most convenient way to protect oneself from attack is to have the weapon aimed and ready to fire before the attack begins.
Except of course that's illegal. For reasons that are obvious to reasonable people.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Taken by fucking whom? This citizen warrior shit has to stop. No one wants to take your stupid rifle, you're not in fucking Sparta surrounded by hostile states.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Taken by fucking whom? This citizen warrior shit has to stop. No one wants to take your stupid rifle, you're not in fucking Sparta surrounded by hostile states.
The people who tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle? The ones who were actively trying to kill him? The ones he shot in self defense?
People literally "tried to take his stupid rifle" from him, which is why its a good thing he had it slung the way he did, because if he didn't, they would have killed him.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Why the fuck did he have a rifle there at all?
+14
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Not needlessly carrying a rifle into that situation would have been the best way to keep it from being taken from him. He chose to carry the rifle, so he's responsible for not carrying it in a threatening manner, or else he's responsible for how people react to that threat. Even with the right to do something, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think the very least that should happen is that the 'low ready' position with a firearm should be considered felony brandishing a weapon and making terroristic threats if you aren't actively engaged in defending your life.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Taken by fucking whom? This citizen warrior shit has to stop. No one wants to take your stupid rifle, you're not in fucking Sparta surrounded by hostile states.
The people who tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle? The people trying to disarm a possible active shooter?
Not needlessly carrying a rifle into that situation would have been the best way to keep it from being taken from him. He chose to carry the rifle, so he's responsible for not carrying it in a threatening manner, or else he's responsible for how people react to that threat. Even with the right to do something, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions.
And again we're back to blaming Rittenhouse for people trying to murder him. An individual who broke no laws, and who was attacked by people who did break laws, is somehow legally responsible for those other people breaking laws and trying to kill him. This is peak leftist insanity.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
It is, but we've been over this exhaustively earlier in the thread.
I think this is the actual image that the prosecution claims is Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Zaminsky before the chase began. The one the defense didn't want enlarged for fear of pixels being altered by the enlarging process.
When that's the best evidence anyone can provide of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone prior to the chase, I don't understand why there's even an argument.
You mean… besides Rittenhouse claiming that he did so and also told other people that he had not aimed at that he had aimed at the sure.
I'm gonna stop you right there. It's obvious from the video that when yellow pants accuses Rittenhouse of pointing a gun at him, Rittenhouse's response is tantamount to "whatever, man." He's clearly trying to brush the guy off. Everyone who keeps bringing this up in an attempt to nail Rittenhouse is employing the same dirty tactics as the Sheriff in My Cousin Vinnie. You can argue that a person with a gun doesn't have a right to sarcasm, but you're wrong. He's making an attempt to de-escalate that confrontation and walk away -- which, notably, is successful! No further confrontation with yellow pants!
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse actually pointed a gun at yellow pants. Even if he did point a gun at yellow pants, and even if his response when accused of such action was a confession, it still wouldn't have justified Rosenbaum's attack as a self-defense action, because self-defense is only a valid response to a threat when the threat is immediate. So Rosenbaum's actions categorically cannot be construed as self-defense if they are based on Rittenhouse's exchange with yellow pants.
The only reason the prosecution even brought up this point was to establish a pattern of behavior in an attempt to bolster the accusation that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at Ziminski. But the evidence for that accusation is weak, at best, hinging entirely on that drone video that captures the action so far in the distance that it's impossible for any honest viewer to be certain of what's happening. No other evidence exists that Rittenhouse actually pointed his gun at Ziminski. In fact, no other evidence exists that he pointed his gun at anyone prior to shooting Rosenbaum.
But here's the real kicker: It doesn't even matter if Rittenhouse did provoke the attack, because Wisconsin's self-defense statute states that although you lose the privilege of self-defense when you provoke the attack, you regain that privilege if you retreat! Rittenhouse is in full retreat, flat-out running away from Rosenbaum before he is cornered and forced to defend himself. At that point, even if Rittenhouse pointed his gun at yellow pants AND at Ziminski, he still has the right to defend himself, because Rosenbaum is chasing him.
I have yet to hear from anyone who is condemning Rittenhouse explain how chasing someone down the street while they try to get away isn't attacking that person.
Sage on
+2
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
Yes.
That's asinine.
It's not.
Yes, it absolutely is. Attacking an openly armed person, who is quite pointedly not shooting people, on the unreliable (and in this case, false) word of a stranger is spectacularly stupid. Like, get yourself killed attempting to prevent a nonexistent attack stupid.
I'm honestly amazed that someone is making excuses for Kyle given the ridiculous contortions of the law that were necessary for him to have that gun that night.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
Yes.
That's asinine.
Don't point your gun at anything you don't want to shoot, don't shoot anything you don't plan on killing.
But do go on about the guy swinging a chain any one of those hundreds could take down being more than a football fields distance away. THAT's the true instigator.
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
It is, but we've been over this exhaustively earlier in the thread.
I think this is the actual image that the prosecution claims is Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Zaminsky before the chase began. The one the defense didn't want enlarged for fear of pixels being altered by the enlarging process.
When that's the best evidence anyone can provide of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone prior to the chase, I don't understand why there's even an argument.
You mean… besides Rittenhouse claiming that he did so and also told other people that he had not aimed at that he had aimed at the sure.
I'm gonna stop you right there. It's obvious from the video that when yellow pants accuses Rittenhouse of pointing a gun at him, Rittenhouse's response is tantamount to "whatever, man." He's clearly trying to brush the guy off. Everyone who keeps bringing this up in an attempt to nail Rittenhouse is employing the same dirty tactics as the Sheriff in My Cousin Vinnie. You can argue that a person with a gun doesn't have a right to sarcasm, but you're wrong. He's making an attempt to de-escalate that confrontation and walk away -- which, notably, is successful! .
The word successful is doing some serious fucking work in a sentence talking about a guy who killed three people, innit?
I'm going to say you shouldn't be using fucking sarcasm when you're fucking holding a rifle.
Posts
Yes, the guy who loudly threatened to kill people, and who chased after Rittenhouse, is the instigator! His actions directly led to him being shot. His actions also indirectly led to Huber and Grosskreutz being shot.
Rosenbaum is the weak link in your "Kyle just wanted to shoot people" angle, because he intentionally attacked Rittenhouse and was killed in self defense as a direct result. Everything else that occurred that night stems from that moment.
Aiming a gun at someone is an instigation.
The only time he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum was when Rosenbaum was charging him, after initially trying to run away from Rosenbaum. Is there proof that he was aiming his gun at anyone else, other than what he claims is a sarcastic comment to yellow pants?
These t
This statement rests on a deceptive framework. Constitutional rights bind the government, so while technically true, in practice the boundaries of our rights as they come into tension with the interests of society often rest on the feelings of others.
Example: Regardless of how you feel about Jesus, you still can’t discriminate against gay people trying to get married.
Often, conflicting rights come down to how two people feel, and which one of those feelings we’ve decided takes precedence.
Not if you threatened with the knife first and never left knife engagement range.
Edit: apologies for the quote/submit. Phone posting makes selecting and editing harder
Edit2: if it feels like we’re going in circles it’s because we have been here before. You’re obligated to withdraw when you instigate for it to be self defense. But withdrawing means dropping your gun (or at the very least moving the gun to a position it cannot fire) A school shooter who still has their gun has not “withdrawn” and cannot claim self defense. There is no difference here. Rittenhouse cannot have withdrawn until he no longer had the weapon. After which he would be entitled to self defense.
Former labor Sec Robert Reich writes about the culture of political violence and the rejection of civil authority that binds issues like Rittenhouse, Bannon’s contempt of congress and Gosar’s recent threatening video edit in an interconnected system that is only growing stronger as no one holds any element of it accountible:
Gonna stop you right there.
You don't get to claim 'sarcasm' or 'just a joke' when you are holding a gun.
That's not a thing you can do.
It is, but we've been over this exhaustively earlier in the thread.
When that's the best evidence anyone can provide of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone prior to the chase, I don't understand why there's even an argument.
"I was threating you with a weapon, hah hah, just joking, brah."
Can’t wait for the next spree shooter at a school to argue he was defending himself from a teachers board eraser so feared for his life.
It's the white supremacist equivalent of tapping the butt of a pistol while it's in holster to get someone to react so you can murder them.
1) the prosecution absolutely should have seen this coming and gone for lesser charges. Even having Rittenhouse in prison for two years would be something.
2) I honestly think the first death (Rosenbaum) was in self defense. I don't think self defense should be allowed based on the background evidence, but as per what's allowed in the trial, it's self defense. I think at least one or two of the jurors are going to feel deep regret after seeing the full news, and that takes me to...
3) I think we live in an internet age and the jurors are going to get doxxed and most of them don't know what that means. I really feel bad for the jurors.
4) The death of Huber and Rosenbaum and the injury of Grosskreutz are going to end up falling on the guy who bought the rifle (in civil court) when in reality, every charge after Rosenbaum should rest solely on the Kenosha police department and it should be defunded and rebuilt.
5) The Rittenhouse family should be liable for all civil charges and once their bankruptcy clears it should fall to the Kenosha government to pay the rest.
You mean… besides Rittenhouse claiming that he did so and also told other people that he had not aimed at that he had aimed at the sure.
Now I mean sure he has an incentive to lie but not to tell that one. And it would be pretty weird to suddenly not believe him then simply because what he said was harmful to his case.
You're moving the goalposts from "aiming a gun at someone is an instigation" to "sarcastically claiming to have aimed a gun at someone earlier in the night is an instigation"
This gets even worse when you consider that Rosenbaum, the party supposedly instigated, wasn't present for the event AFAICT.
So it turns into "sarcastically claiming to have aimed a gun at someone earlier in the night, then having that statement make its way to a 3rd party (hypothetically, no one has shown this happened), still counts as an instigation against that 3rd party significantly later in the night"
Yeah, I get that sarcasm is seriously inappropriate when you're bearing arms. So pretend there was no sarcasm involved. Pretend he stone cold said "yeah, I pointed my gun at you" to yellow-pants as he about-faced and walked away. Do you really believe that constitutes instigation for Rosenbaum (who was not there) to try to chase him off later in the night?
You're completely wrong, and also a tremendous goose.
It’s always pretty fuckin lolsy when it spins back rounds to this bit cause the only reason Kyle got away with murdering 2 people is because he felt threatened.
This is why people who are clueless about guns shouldn't be writing legislation about guns. Having a rifle slung at the front of your body is the best way to keep it from being taken from you. Rittenhouse claims that multiple people tried to grab his weapon (at least one of which is on video), so it kinda makes sense to have your rifle slung in that fashion, doesn't it?
Only if you’re trying to volunteer for an altercation because you’re walking around as an active threat to public safety.
Yes.
If a rifle isn’t a threat why are you worried about someone taking it from you?
Sadly we will never know Rosenbaums logic because he’s dead.
That's asinine.
It's not.
"I felt threatened because a guy who had a gun was running away from me and I chased him and attacked him"
"I felt threatened because I was running away from someone and they continued to pursue me and then attacked me"
These two statements are not comparable.
"I have the justification to kill you based on something you may or may not have said to someone else earlier this evening when I was not present, and you do not have the right to try to defend yourself while I kill you" is, actually, an asinine concept.
It makes more sense to consider that a rifle is a bad choice in that kind of environment.
personal convenience is not a good measure of what should constitute brandishing. The most convenient way to protect oneself from attack is to have the weapon aimed and ready to fire before the attack begins.
Except of course that's illegal. For reasons that are obvious to reasonable people.
Taken by fucking whom? This citizen warrior shit has to stop. No one wants to take your stupid rifle, you're not in fucking Sparta surrounded by hostile states.
The people who tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle? The ones who were actively trying to kill him? The ones he shot in self defense?
People literally "tried to take his stupid rifle" from him, which is why its a good thing he had it slung the way he did, because if he didn't, they would have killed him.
Why the fuck did he have a rifle there at all?
To shoot protestors.
Which he then did.
Not needlessly carrying a rifle into that situation would have been the best way to keep it from being taken from him. He chose to carry the rifle, so he's responsible for not carrying it in a threatening manner, or else he's responsible for how people react to that threat. Even with the right to do something, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions.
- John Stuart Mill
To protect himself from violent, likely suicidal mental patients who try to kill him?
Sounds wacky, right? But here we are.
And again we're back to blaming Rittenhouse for people trying to murder him. An individual who broke no laws, and who was attacked by people who did break laws, is somehow legally responsible for those other people breaking laws and trying to kill him. This is peak leftist insanity.
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
I'm gonna stop you right there. It's obvious from the video that when yellow pants accuses Rittenhouse of pointing a gun at him, Rittenhouse's response is tantamount to "whatever, man." He's clearly trying to brush the guy off. Everyone who keeps bringing this up in an attempt to nail Rittenhouse is employing the same dirty tactics as the Sheriff in My Cousin Vinnie. You can argue that a person with a gun doesn't have a right to sarcasm, but you're wrong. He's making an attempt to de-escalate that confrontation and walk away -- which, notably, is successful! No further confrontation with yellow pants!
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse actually pointed a gun at yellow pants. Even if he did point a gun at yellow pants, and even if his response when accused of such action was a confession, it still wouldn't have justified Rosenbaum's attack as a self-defense action, because self-defense is only a valid response to a threat when the threat is immediate. So Rosenbaum's actions categorically cannot be construed as self-defense if they are based on Rittenhouse's exchange with yellow pants.
The only reason the prosecution even brought up this point was to establish a pattern of behavior in an attempt to bolster the accusation that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at Ziminski. But the evidence for that accusation is weak, at best, hinging entirely on that drone video that captures the action so far in the distance that it's impossible for any honest viewer to be certain of what's happening. No other evidence exists that Rittenhouse actually pointed his gun at Ziminski. In fact, no other evidence exists that he pointed his gun at anyone prior to shooting Rosenbaum.
But here's the real kicker: It doesn't even matter if Rittenhouse did provoke the attack, because Wisconsin's self-defense statute states that although you lose the privilege of self-defense when you provoke the attack, you regain that privilege if you retreat! Rittenhouse is in full retreat, flat-out running away from Rosenbaum before he is cornered and forced to defend himself. At that point, even if Rittenhouse pointed his gun at yellow pants AND at Ziminski, he still has the right to defend himself, because Rosenbaum is chasing him.
I have yet to hear from anyone who is condemning Rittenhouse explain how chasing someone down the street while they try to get away isn't attacking that person.
Yes, it absolutely is. Attacking an openly armed person, who is quite pointedly not shooting people, on the unreliable (and in this case, false) word of a stranger is spectacularly stupid. Like, get yourself killed attempting to prevent a nonexistent attack stupid.
Did you never play telephone?
Don't point your gun at anything you don't want to shoot, don't shoot anything you don't plan on killing.
Isn't this like...gun safety 101?
The word successful is doing some serious fucking work in a sentence talking about a guy who killed three people, innit?
I'm going to say you shouldn't be using fucking sarcasm when you're fucking holding a rifle.