Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[andersweinstein]

Killer Kyle was hunting Rossenbaum…

Else why was Kyle following Rossenbaum??
(And if you believe Kyle you are a fool or complicit.. and I don’t think you are a fool)

I didn't see convincing evidence he was following Rosenbaum. Video shows he grabbed a fire extinguisher and started down Sheridan road, way before he could possibly know Rosenbaum was on the way. A fire was inded set in a truck on the other Car Source lot and he testified he got a phone call to go put it out. Makes perfect sense. He is on video calling out "anyone need medical?" repeatedly as he walks down the road, with McGinnis following a ways behind. Rittenhouse looks oblivious to me.

At some ways down the road you see Rosenbaum, Ziminskis, Jump Kick man huddling around a fire they've started in somebody's trash can in the middle of the road. You see Rosenbaum get up and start walking quickly toward the lot. The FBI infrared surveillance video shows he ran ahead and took a position behind a car on the lot, and ran out toward Rittenhouse from behind shortly after KR walked past and encountered the Ziminskis.

Prosecution tried to spin those movements as showing Rittenhouse "chasing down" Rosenbaum. Well that's one possible interpretation I guess. But everything is entirely consistent with Rittenhouse's story that he never saw Rosenbaum, completely plausible given their distance in the night. From what you see on the video he didn't look to me like he was chasing anyone, although I grant it gets kind of indistinct as he runs onto the lot. McGinnis never described him as appearing to follow anyone. Looks to me like they were just both moving in the same direction, toward that burning car. (Lots of people were heading independently in that direction. That's where the action was as people were gleefully smashing cars on the south side of the lot).

I guess the prosecution's interpretation is *possible*. Maybe you even judge it more probable than not based on circumstances. But if I'm a juror I think I need more than that for someone presumed innocent.

At any rate it is very easy to understand that a jury might not find it proven that Rittenhouse was following or hunting anyone.

[Dave from down under]

If only Rossenbaum could have testified how he was fearing for his life with Kyle hunting him with a rifle…

But the dead cannot defend themselves.

Which is probably why Kyle put 4 bullets into Rossenbaum to be sure that he was dead.

[andersweinstein]

If only Rossenbaum could have testified how he was fearing for his life with Kyle hunting him with a rifle…

But the dead cannot defend themselves.

Which is probably why Kyle put 4 bullets into Rossenbaum to be sure that he was dead.

Though inadmissable, we know Rosenbaum was an uncommonly disturbed man with no place to sleep that night. Supposedly an abuse victim himself, he spent his entire adult life (18 to 32) in Arizona State prison for sexually assaulting 5 young boys between 9 and 11 including anally raping a pair of teens, while staying with friends because kicked out of his home. He moved to Kenosha, found a woman who loved him and still couldn't stop himself from battering her bloody so that she pressed domestic abuse charges and there was a no-contact condition on him. She advised him not to go downtown but he went anyway.

Prosecution and other witnesses said he was hyper-agressive. He's on video repeatedly baiting armed men with "shoot me, n*gger" and cursing at them repeatedly. He set fires, overturned a port-o-john, wielded a chain taken from a trailer, covered his face. Rittenhouse's testimony that he threatened to kill him if he got them alone was confirmed by another witness, as were other threats and statements ("I'll cut your f*king hearts out", "I just got out of jail and I'm not afraid to go back").

So why is it so hard to believe that this guy Rosenbaum was the aggressor? Seems like a no-brainer to me. He may have been suicidal (he was only there at all because dumped on the street on discharge from psychiatric hospital). He manifestly was not afraid to mix it up and try to start something with multiple people carrying long guns. Why would he suddenly get afraid of Rittenhouse and his gun?

I think people are only blinded to this possibility because of side-taking. Rosenbaum was among the protestors, Rittenhouse among the "militia", so we have to blame Rittenhouse because he's one of "them".

[Dave from down under]

We know Kyle inserted himself into a potential dangerous situation after fantasising about shooting people.

He did so with a rifle and he then went hunting..

If Rossenbaum had a gun and claimed he feared for his life and shot Kyle 4 times to be sure he was dead…

Would you be defending Rossenbaum’s actions?

[neeneko]

So why is it so hard to believe that this guy Rosenbaum was the aggressor? Seems like a no-brainer to me. He may have been suicidal (he was only there at all because dumped on the street on discharge from psychiatric hospital). He manifestly was not afraid to mix it up and try to start something with multiple people carrying long guns. Why would he suddenly get afraid of Rittenhouse and his gun?

It is not hard to believe, but doesn't make Rittenhouse's actions leading up to the shooting any better. The law has WAY too much tolerance for 'white guy picks a fight, shoots other guy in self defense'.

All of this 'if we can just show how the other guy was a bad man' framing is just another example of 'choose your victim wisely so juries will relate to you rather than them'.

Now, the later shootings.. that was pure 'people trying to stop a mass shooting in progress', and that he still got off is going to be a factor in handling mass shootings going forward. Now people are going to have to weigh the fantasy of being a big hero vs the shooter being able to make a self defense claim against them... so better to carefully weigh your social standing against the guy with a gun.

[Dave from down under]

Oh no…

It becomes

See someone

Shoot them before they shoot you!

Since they may have a concealed gun or vorpal skateboard you are entitled to claim that you were fearful!!!

Anders would be on your side!

[andersweinstein]

We know Kyle inserted himself into a potential dangerous situation after fantasising about shooting people.

He did so with a rifle and he then went hunting..

I explained why I don't see evidence he "went hunting" or anything like that. It looked to me like he grabbed a fire extinguisher and went down to put out a fire in the car lot, calling out "anyone need medical" as he went and yelling "friendly friendly friendly" to try to indicate he was not an enemy as he approached the lot. He fled when attacked. Those are the things an innocent kid would do (even one acting out a fantasy of himself as some kind of combat zone medic.)

If we're just talking about the verdict: a jury could very easily not believe he was "hunting" anyone on the evidence presented.

If Rossenbaum had a gun and claimed he feared for his life and shot Kyle 4 times to be sure he was dead…

Would you be defending Rossenbaum’s actions?

It's possible. It would depend on the circumstances. Every case is different. Rosenbaum would have to have an objectively reasonable belief he faced an imminent unlawful interference with his person putting him at risk of death or serious bodily harm. So we'd have to ask why that was reasonable in the circumstances,

The thing is, once the state blesses walking around with an AR as fully legal behavior, I think it is generally not sufficient grounds to attack someone simply that they are openly carrying a fearsome weapon. After all, they're just engaged in legal behavior. And the law usually protects your right to engage in legal behavior. They would have to do something further like pointing the gun to make it reasonable to believe they were about to shoot you.

You know, I'm with you in favoring greater gun control. I think open carry is very stupid and gives rise to very problematic situations. Like the one leading to loss of life in Kenosha. Or the one leading to the death of Garrett Foster in Austin, in that case a protestor approaching a car while carrying a rifle shot by a right-wing driver who (unsuccessfully) claimed self-defence. But my preferences aren't relevant to Rittenhouse's case. You have to go by the law they have, not the law you wish they had.

[andersweinstein]

So why is it so hard to believe that this guy Rosenbaum was the aggressor? Seems like a no-brainer to me. He may have been suicidal (he was only there at all because dumped on the street on discharge from psychiatric hospital). He manifestly was not afraid to mix it up and try to start something with multiple people carrying long guns. Why would he suddenly get afraid of Rittenhouse and his gun?

It is not hard to believe, but doesn't make Rittenhouse's actions leading up to the shooting any better. The law has WAY too much tolerance for 'white guy picks a fight, shoots other guy in self defense'.

OK, but I don't think Rittenhouse even picked a fight. I was saying it much more likely Rosenbaum was the white guy who picked a fight. For one thing, we can see him on video trying to start fights with armed men a bit earlier that evening.

All of this 'if we can just show how the other guy was a bad man' framing is just another example of 'choose your victim wisely so juries will relate to you rather than them'.

OK, but note its not just to make him unlikable. It's relevant to the question about who was more likely to have been the aggressor ("picked a fight"), which can be an issue in self-defense cases.

[sad-cafe]

So why is it so hard to believe that this guy Rosenbaum was the aggressor? Seems like a no-brainer to me. He may have been suicidal (he was only there at all because dumped on the street on discharge from psychiatric hospital). He manifestly was not afraid to mix it up and try to start something with multiple people carrying long guns. Why would he suddenly get afraid of Rittenhouse and his gun?

It is not hard to believe, but doesn't make Rittenhouse's actions leading up to the shooting any better. The law has WAY too much tolerance for 'white guy picks a fight, shoots other guy in self defense'.

OK, but I don't think Rittenhouse even picked a fight. I was saying it much more likely Rosenbaum was the white guy who picked a fight. For one thing, we can see him on video trying to start fights with armed men a bit earlier that evening.

All of this 'if we can just show how the other guy was a bad man' framing is just another example of 'choose your victim wisely so juries will relate to you rather than them'.

OK, but note its not just to make him unlikable. It's relevant to the question about who was more likely to have been the aggressor ("picked a fight"), which can be an issue in self-defense cases.

you have no credibility with me.

[neeneko]

The thing is, once the state blesses walking around with an AR as fully legal behavior, I think it is generally not sufficient grounds to attack someone simply that they are openly carrying a fearsome weapon. After all, they're just engaged in legal behavior. And the law usually protects your right to engage in legal behavior. They would have to do something further like pointing the gun to make it reasonable to believe they were about to shoot you.

The state blesses all sorts of behavior that others can take as a potential threat. Just talk to anyone who has had to deal with stalkers or other forms of harassment... the police often can not do anything until AFTER someone has done physical harm to someone.. but trying to make yourself look threatening so that people believe you will harm them is blessed.

And that is the whole point behind the open carry crowd he was embracing.... guys trying to be as threatening as possible while still within the law, leveraging OTHER shooter's reputations in order to get 'respect' from others who do not know if they are about to start shooting or not.

[raison de arizona]

The state blesses all sorts of behavior that others can take as a potential threat. Just talk to anyone who has had to deal with stalkers or other forms of harassment... the police often can not do anything until AFTER someone has done physical harm to someone.. but trying to make yourself look threatening so that people believe you will harm them is blessed.

And that is the whole point behind the open carry crowd he was embracing.... guys trying to be as threatening as possible while still within the law, leveraging OTHER shooter's reputations in order to get 'respect' from others who do not know if they are about to start shooting or not.

What Constitutes Brandishing a Firearm?
As noted, “brandishing” a firearm is the unlawful display of a firearm. Generally, the display of the firearm must be intended to intimidate, coerce, or threaten someone to be considered “brandishing.” Remember, “intent” can be established through other factors outside of your own perception. This is one of the reasons you must always be very careful when carrying a firearm. You may not have thought your conduct was overtly threatening in the moment, but a jury may determine your intent differently through the examination of other external factors.

It’s important to note that, in some places, even SAYING you have a gun can result in criminal charges for what people think of as “brandishing.” For instance, if you were to get into a verbal altercation with another person and say: “I’ve got a gun on me, you better stop running your mouth,” even if the person you speak to never sees the gun, you may be ultimately found guilty of a crime relating to “brandishing” a firearm. Ultimately, if you are involved in an incident that goes to court the jury’s perception of your intent and the reasonableness of your actions will be what determines whether or not you’ve committed a crime in the eyes of the law, not your perception of the event.

If you choose to carry a gun as part of your daily routine, there are several things to keep in mind to avoid unintentionally “brandishing” a firearm. The first thing to remember is that using the firearm in any capacity—and yes, displaying your firearm can be considered “use”—during a self-defense incident or social interaction that has the potential to become a self-defense incident, is ALWAYS an option of last resort. Whenever it is possible to resolve a situation without involving the firearm it’s imperative you do so. While training and education are essential, the only time it is acceptable to use a firearm is when you have no other choice.

https://www.uslawshield.com/everything- ... andishing/

[andersweinstein]

The thing is, once the state blesses walking around with an AR as fully legal behavior, I think it is generally not sufficient grounds to attack someone simply that they are openly carrying a fearsome weapon.

The state blesses all sorts of behavior that others can take as a potential threat. Just talk to anyone who has had to deal with stalkers or other forms of harassment... the police often can not do anything until AFTER someone has done physical harm to someone.. but trying to make yourself look threatening so that people believe you will harm them is blessed.

Not so obvous to me. At some point it becomes a genuine threat.

And that is the whole point behind the open carry crowd he was embracing.... guys trying to be as threatening as possible while still within the law, leveraging OTHER shooter's reputations in order to get 'respect' from others who do not know if they are about to start shooting or not.

If you look at the video you see lots of armed men out and about that night. It was just part of the atmosphere. People walked among them, protestors jeered at them and argued wth them. They weren't in general fearful of the armed men shooting them. Rittenhouse walked among the protestors asking "anyone need medical" and you see some didn't even look up from their cell phones as he passed.

I agree there are problems with this. It is too easy to turn into violence, yes. But .. I don't think you can just assume that Rittenhouse did something that made it rational to attack him. You need some evidence. My idea is that people are just kind of assuming this. It wasn't clear at the trial. It could have happened and the defense managed to keep the evidence out. But ... you mainly see him walking among protestors trying desperately to be recognized as helpful.

[Dave from down under]

And there you have the civil case against the city.

The police turning a blind eye or supporting the vigilantes brandishing their guns to intimidate others.

Nicely links to Killer Kyle

He went their with the provable intent to intimidate with his open carry etc.

Don’t forget his reported “sniper” comment (and the above post on brandishing” - Killer Kyle was looking for any excuse to shoot one or more people - he killed two and maimed one and the police drove past him after he had killed.

[andersweinstein]

What Constitutes Brandishing a Firearm?
As noted, “brandishing” a firearm is the unlawful display of a firearm. Generally, the display of the firearm must be intended to intimidate, coerce, or threaten someone to be considered “brandishing.” Remember, “intent” can be established through other factors outside of your own perception. This is one of the reasons you must always be very careful when carrying a firearm. You may not have thought your conduct was overtly threatening in the moment, but a jury may determine your intent differently through the examination of other external factors.

It’s important to note that, in some places, even SAYING you have a gun can result in criminal charges for what people think of as “brandishing.” For instance, if you were to get into a verbal altercation with another person and say: “I’ve got a gun on me, you better stop running your mouth,” even if the person you speak to never sees the gun, you may be ultimately found guilty of a crime relating to “brandishing” a firearm. Ultimately, if you are involved in an incident that goes to court the jury’s perception of your intent and the reasonableness of your actions will be what determines whether or not you’ve committed a crime in the eyes of the law, not your perception of the event.

If you choose to carry a gun as part of your daily routine, there are several things to keep in mind to avoid unintentionally “brandishing” a firearm. The first thing to remember is that using the firearm in any capacity—and yes, displaying your firearm can be considered “use”—during a self-defense incident or social interaction that has the potential to become a self-defense incident, is ALWAYS an option of last resort. Whenever it is possible to resolve a situation without involving the firearm it’s imperative you do so. While training and education are essential, the only time it is acceptable to use a firearm is when you have no other choice.

https://www.uslawshield.com/everything- ... andishing/

Yes. First, I don't think prosecution established that Rittenhouse ever unlawfully brandished his firearm in this sense. AFTER Rosenbaum started chasing him and he was fleeing, then he pointed it, yes, to try to deter the attack. That appears to be as a last resort.

Prosecution argued he pointed at Ziminski so disputed this. But there was no witness testimony to that and only an indistinct blowup to support this, so I don't think that was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It seems speculative to me. It could have happened, it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt it happened. It's easy to doubt given their evidence. (And Ziminski was carrying a pistol in his hand and advancing in what was possibly a threatening manner. So maybe Ziminski was guilty of brandishing)

That article goes on to point out that state laws vary widely on brandishing. My understanding is that WI law doesn't use the term "brandishing" but does have a law on endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon which criminalizes intentionally pointing a firearm at another.

[Dave from down under]

There is always some excuse for killer Kyle.

[Ben-Prime]

I explained why I don't see evidence he "went hunting" or anything like that. It looked to me like he grabbed a fire extinguisher and went down to put out a fire in the car lot, calling out "anyone need medical" as he went and yelling "friendly friendly friendly" to try to indicate he was not an enemy as he approached the lot. He fled when attacked. Those are the things an innocent kid would do (even one acting out a fantasy of himself as some kind of combat zone medic.)

But this is the point I have been trying to make and to which I think you have been either non-receptive or willfully blind: His original pre-coaching testimony would have showed a state of mind that he wasn't thinking of himself as a combat zone *medic* at all, but as a full combat participant, and the medic story was meant to soften the edges.

When a kid is willing to blurt out his true reaction on the stand and it includes having snipers on the roof, most reasonable people would not associate this with the state of mind of someone engaging in defensive, supportive, operations involving combat zone medical first response. By making it clear what was in his head, Kyle would have with lack of coaching to polish up his act revealed his unvarnished thoughts which showed a more lethal combat oriented intent. It is only the coaching which kept that state-of-mind evidence from the jury.

So I fully get your argument that the evidence seen by the jury could have mattered, sure. My argument is, and has been, that we have the benefit of seeing now the broader evidence in hindsight, and you are still not willing to entertain the idea that entering into the situation at the start, before any violence took place, Kyle did not have and go into the situation with the state of mind of a combat medic, and that his protestations to this effect were cover for his real state of mind.

[sad-cafe]

again-this dweeb has no credibility.

He does not engage on any other topic, he is just here lickity split when someone says anything about his poor widdle kyle

[Dave from down under]

Everyone needs Someone

Kyle has Anders..
And
Anders has…

[Baidn]

Everyone needs Someone

Kyle has Anders..
And
Anders has…

I honestly just don't get it, if you're really that big of a RWNJ and fan of Kyle and want to see the plan around him (encouraging lethal violence against those you disagree with politically) to succeed just TAKE THE F***ING W AND GO. But no that's not enough for him, it can't just be that someone on his side escaped the worst possible consequences, itself a substantial victory for white supremacist and other extremist Kyle has to be RIGHT in what he did. It needs to be accepted that this is the CORRECT response to people who disagree with them. It is quite frankly profoundly disgusting.

[Baidn]

Would you be defending Rossenbaum’s actions?

Noticed he didn't answer that too....yet another very telling part about where this guy sits in his actual views. (I prefer not to quote of mention him by name lest the Beetlejuice effect come into play)

[Dave from down under]

If you can convince yourself (and other along the way) that what Kyle did was justified.

Then it may be that more people will do as Kyle did…

There can never be enough maimed and killed fo further the cause..

[pipistrelle]

It is quite frankly profoundly disgusting.

Rittenhouse killed and maimed, cried crocodile tears, and expressed no remorse.

[andersweinstein]

I honestly just don't get it, if you're really that big of a RWNJ and fan of Kyle and want to see the plan around him (encouraging lethal violence against those you disagree with politically) to succeed just TAKE THE F***ING W AND GO. But no that's not enough for him, it can't just be that someone on his side escaped the worst possible consequences, itself a substantial victory for white supremacist and other extremist Kyle has to be RIGHT in what he did.

Politically I'm not a right-winger at all. I guess I'd be called a centrist or sometimes contrarian liberal. I'm certainly a passionate Democrat who could never bring himself to vote Republican. I can tell you that once in a while I found myself thinking maybe I should put my money where my mouth is and donate to Rittenhouse's defence fund. But I could never bring myself to, uh, pull the trigger. Those are just not my people.

I got into the case because I saw it as a very dramatic example of misinformation on the my own political side. Left-wing bubble think, I sometimes call it. To me, one's goal should be, as much as possible, to avoid bubbles on any side and strive to stick to the evidence no matter where it points. A sort of rationalism.

I can find other people in this general political space online. Some call themselves "heterodox", though I find that cringe. Jesse Singal, another consensus-bucking liberal, pefectly exemplifies my view of the case in this piece, The Rittenhouse Verdict Shouldn't Have Come as a Suprise . On the strictly legal matter, you can find pieces like this from NPR: Why legal experts were not surprised by the Rittenhouse Jury's Decision to Acquit

That political space doesn't seem to me be well represented on this board. I find the attorneys absolutely outstanding at applying principles impartially even to people they don't like, and have learned so much from the legally informed commentary, even from those who disagree with me. But otherwise it looks to me to suffer a bit from partisan bias. To me you're not really combatting misinformation in general if you're not open to bucking a partisan consensus on your own side when you judge the evidence doesn't support it.

[Baidn]

Nothing you have ever said on this board makes the above statement seem at all credible.

[neonzx]

It is quite frankly profoundly disgusting.

Rittenhouse killed and maimed, cried crocodile tears, and expressed no remorse.

Correct. And I still feel a bit for this young man. He was a kid and then the RW machine consumed him.
I can't fix it now. What he did was wrong.
He would have much more sympathy if he had owned up to it then.