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

[raison de arizona]

Ziminski was trying to stop an active shooter before he killed again.

[Dave from down under]

Just for a sanity check.

NSW gun laws - self defence is not a valid reason for applying for a gun license.

NSW Self Defence requires proportionality
A plastic bag attack does not justify deadly force.

[Dave from down under]

Ziminski was trying to stop an active shooter before he killed again.

Kyle can claim self Defence

But those he shot cannot… because they weren’t Kyle blah blah blah

[andersweinstein]

Ziminski was trying to stop an active shooter before he killed again.

Ziminski fired (into the air) first, as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, before Rittenhouse had done any shooting. I suspect you meant Grosskreutz?

Anyway, the point was that there were lots of people bringing guns in that situation, you have no principled basis to single out Rittenhouse for blame for bringing a gun.

[Dave from down under]

Ziminski was trying to stop an active shooter before he killed again.

Ziminski fired (into the air) first, as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, before Rittenhouse had done any shooting. I suspect you meant Grosskreutz?

Anyway, the point was that there were lots of people bringing guns in that situation, you have no principled basis to single out Rittenhouse for blame for bringing a gun.

Did anyone, apart from Kyle, shoot anyone else that night?

Iirc the only one who shot anyone was Killer Kyle.

Who chose to go there armed and ready to kill.

[RVInit]

Ziminski was trying to stop an active shooter before he killed again.

Ziminski fired (into the air) first, as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, before Rittenhouse had done any shooting. I suspect you meant Grosskreutz?

Anyway, the point was that there were lots of people bringing guns in that situation, you have no principled basis to single out Rittenhouse for blame for bringing a gun.

One of the small handful of people who brought guns deliberately tried to babysit Kyle and even testified that Kyle was out of his element. The same guy had to tell Kyle to tone it down and stop antagonizing people with his gun. The night Kyle was cosplaying was nothing like the night before. There were minor little property damage going on, but none of the protesters were doing anything to anyone until Kyle set them off.

And none of the other guys with a gun felt the need to shoot anyone. Every one of the many who testified for the prosecution said that at no time did they feel that they, or anyone else's life was in any danger whatsoever. And none of the others who carried guns on that night at that place has ever come out and said they thought Rittenhouse's actions that night were justified. None. Several of them testified for the prosecution.

[andersweinstein]

Did anyone, apart from Kyle, shoot anyone else that night?

Well he was the only one who got attacked. I mean, I do think it's true that his inexperience and naivete showed itself in this: he was dumb enough to let himself get attacked. He lost sight of Operational Security, if you like.

He seemed to think that if he only said "Friendly Friendly Friendly" the people there would recognize that he was not their enemy, and only there to help. And I conjecture he got a little complacent after some of his forays into the crowd looking to give first aid, complacent that people recognized him as not their enemy (as he saw himself). He said something suggesting this in the WaPo jailhouse interview. So he got to a place where he felt OK going down the road to put out the fire without backup.

And things would have been fine, I think were it not for the very bad luck that Rosenbaum had been dumped on the street that night and went out "looking for trouble". Other protestors may have razzed him verbally, but they were not crazy enough to attack him. But Rosenbaum seems to have been a different story.

[andersweinstein]

One of the small handful of people who brought guns deliberately tried to babysit Kyle and even testified that Kyle was out of his element.

Hmm, you conveniently suppress all of the protest group who carried guns.

But sure, I'd agree !00% he was out of his element. It was a very bad idea for him to go there and we don't want to encourage it. Still ... I can't see that the attack on him resulted t from his inexperience. (Unless you count being dumb enough to leave yourself OPEN to attack.) It didn't happen because he was negligent with his firearm for example.

The same guy had to tell Kyle to tone it down and stop antagonizing people with his gun.

My recollection is that Balch testified he told him better not to respond VERBALLY. This was in reaction to his responding "I love you too Ma'am" to someone who yelled "Fuck You" at him. Balch told him better not to respond at all. I don't remember anything about Balch saying he was antagonizing people with his gun. Seems a little odd since Balch was also walking around with a gun.

The night Kyle was cosplaying was nothing like the night before. There were minor little property damage going on, but none of the protesters were doing anything to anyone until Kyle set them off.

What did he do to set them off? I am not sure what you are referring to. Heading up to the attack Kyle is on video walking obliviously down the street carrying a fire extinguisher and asking "anyone need medical"?" repeatedly. It looks to me like people mostly viewed him as a curious oddball. They were naturally a little wary. Again, during the preceding quixotic medical run he walked by people who didn't even bother to look up from their phones.

Anyway, what matters for self-defense I think is whether they had any right to be set off so they would attack him. Like if gang members threaten a shopkeeper, and the shopkeeper gets a gun, and the gang members are so "set off" by this that they attack him -- well, we blame the attackers. They have no right to be "set off".

It looks to me like Rosenbaum and Ziminski were not there out of the slightest concern for Black lives but were basically hooligans who wanted to engage in criminal mischief of various degrees. So they were "set off" at the thought that some people might interfere with that, say by putting out fires they wanted to set. That seems to be why Rosenbaum tried to start fights with the armed men at the Ultimate. So what? Big deal if the criminals were "set off". They had no right to attack him. They could have just left him alone and no one would have been hurt.

[andersweinstein]

And none of the other guys with a gun felt the need to shoot anyone. Every one of the many who testified for the prosecution said that at no time did they feel that they, or anyone else's life was in any danger whatsoever. And none of the others who carried guns on that night at that place has ever come out and said they thought Rittenhouse's actions that night were justified. None. Several of them testified for the prosecution.

That's kind of interesting. My impression was that several of them wound up helping the defense with their testimony, basically helping make the defense case. I don't think any of them provided strong evidence harmful to the defense, it all seemed to be consistent with it as I recall.

[RVInit]

Balch testified pretty clearly that Rittenhouse had raised his gun and was carrying it in a way that was antagonizing the crowd. So no, he wasn't talking about Kyle's words alone. A couple of protesters had handguns that they kept in holsters or the back of their pants, they were not openly carrying military style weapons like Rittenhouse and the gang he was hanging with. The entire altercation at the gas station was all about the protesters letting Kyle and the rest of them know they did not appreciate the military style weaponry and the implications of having those people wandering around as if the protesters needed to be kept under control by self appointed "cops". It was insulting and antagonistic and very much not appreciated. Plenty of video evidence showed quite clearly that protesters were not appreciative of Rittenhouse in particular as the others seemed to have the maturity to see clearly the effect they were having on the protesters and made a point of not antagonizing them.

[Suranis]

You seen very impressionable.

[Danraft]

IIRC, enhanced footage (not allowed in the court) clearly showed Kyle was not trying to avoid killing. It has been too long and I really don’t care enough to look for it.

But, in any case, the concept that he is a right wing speaker now because of this unfortunate event is nonsense.

[andersweinstein]

Balch testified pretty clearly that Rittenhouse had raised his gun and was carrying it in a way that was antagonizing the crowd. So no, he wasn't talking about Kyle's words alone.

Hmm, I'd be very interested in knowing where in the Baclh testimony that is. I did watch it all at the time and I don't remember anything that specific about Rittenhouse's gun.

I see Balch did say Rittenhouse "seemed a ittle underequipped and underexperienced and that's why we stayed with him.
"Did you feel like you needed to keep an eye on the defendant?"
"Yes and no. I felt that as young as he looked and what the way he was though, just the general way he was carrying himself, the protestors would have seen that as a weakness and tried to exploit that."

[andersweinstein]

But whether they asked or not, the judge did give the stand your ground instruction. Here’s what he instructed:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I watched most of the trial. I knew as soon as the judge gave the instruction he’d be acquitted.

I'd be curious to hear more on how it was on your view that that instruction made such a difference.

[Maybenaut]

I'd be curious to hear more on how it was on your view that that instruction made such a difference.

Because jurisdictions without stand-your-ground laws, while they don’t place an absolute duty to retreat, do require the jury to consider the person’s failure to retreat if it was safe to do so as a factor in determining whether the application of deadly force was reasonable.

Stand-your-ground makes it a lot easier to defend on the grounds of justification. In evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct, the jury only has to consider whether the use of force was reasonable in the context of staying put, and doesn’t have to consider whether he could have retreated to a place of safety and avoided a deadly encounter altogether.

I don’t remember exactly what Zimmerman testified to, but I do recall thinking that if the jury believed Zimmerman even a little bit, he’d get off.

[Gregg]

This same person trolled the thread during the entire trial with his fanboy interpretations.

I have no idea why we're now again being trolled.

But speaking of trolls:

"I find going out of my way to piss people off pisses people off.

But I haven't killed any else so, it's a process..."

[Dave from down under]

And if someone reacts in a way that he feels threatened then he won’t hesitate to gun them down.

It’s what he does..

[andersweinstein]

I'd be curious to hear more on how it was on your view that that instruction made such a difference.

Because jurisdictions without stand-your-ground laws, while they don’t place an absolute duty to retreat, do require the jury to consider the person’s failure to retreat if it was safe to do so as a factor in determining whether the application of deadly force was reasonable.

Stand-your-ground makes it a lot easier to defend on the grounds of justification. In evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct, the jury only has to consider whether the use of force was reasonable in the context of staying put, and doesn’t have to consider whether he could have retreated to a place of safety and avoided a deadly encounter altogether.

I don’t remember exactly what Zimmerman testified to, but I do recall thinking that if the jury believed Zimmerman even a little bit, he’d get off.

I see. I've seen the claim that in the situation described (Zimmerman pinned to the ground) there would be no possibility of safe retreat, so it made zero difference in his case whether Stand Your Ground was in effect or not.

Also, while a juror used the words "Stand Your Ground" in an interview, it doesn't seem clear he understood the phrase in any legally precise way. He may have just been using this as a tag for "self-defense".

[Baidn]

I have no idea why we're now again being trolled.

But speaking of trolls:

"I find going out of my way to piss people off pisses people off.

But I haven't killed any else so, it's a process..."

It would annoy me too since Jesus wasn't born in December. I guess when you're really just trying to make an ass of yourself and annoy others being stupid or uninformed is more of a feature than a bug.

[Foggy]

Yeah, the spirit of Christmas is all about trolling non-Christians JUST SO HARD HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I bet Jesus did that all the time. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, LOSER.

Nobody taught me any of this stuff when I was growing up as an Episcopalian.

[Frater I*I]

I bet Jesus did that all the time. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, LOSER.

Nobody taught me any of this stuff when I was growing up as an Episcopalian.

I guess that they didn't teach you about Republican Jesus....

He's just like the Jewish Jesus.....'cept different...



I'll see myself out

[RVInit]

I'd be curious to hear more on how it was on your view that that instruction made such a difference.

Because jurisdictions without stand-your-ground laws, while they don’t place an absolute duty to retreat, do require the jury to consider the person’s failure to retreat if it was safe to do so as a factor in determining whether the application of deadly force was reasonable.

Stand-your-ground makes it a lot easier to defend on the grounds of justification. In evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct, the jury only has to consider whether the use of force was reasonable in the context of staying put, and doesn’t have to consider whether he could have retreated to a place of safety and avoided a deadly encounter altogether.

I don’t remember exactly what Zimmerman testified to, but I do recall thinking that if the jury believed Zimmerman even a little bit, he’d get off.

I see. I've seen the claim that in the situation described (Zimmerman pinned to the ground) there would be no possibility of safe retreat, so it made zero difference in his case whether Stand Your Ground was in effect or not.

Also, while a juror used the words "Stand Your Ground" in an interview, it doesn't seem clear he understood the phrase in any legally precise way. He may have just been using this as a tag for "self-defense".

I don't know that "Stand Your Ground" was what the jury used specifically, but Zimmerman had injuries consistent with Trayvon attempting to defend himself against a man who had followed him not just in his truck, but got out of that truck and followed him on foot. Knowing what I know about my neighbors who served on that jury, and what most white folk were constantly talking about - it's perfectly acceptable to see the situation as George defending himself, but never would they consider the black kid, who was being followed and was probably scared out of his mind, as having to defend himself against the adult following him and then standing in front of him with a gun in his hand. It is simply not the mindset of any of my fellow neighbors to consider that Trayvon may have been in fact, defending HIMSELF. I would ask them to consider how they themselves would have behaved if they were walking down a street minding their own business and someone started following them slowly in a truck. And then once they try to avoid said person, by leaving the sidewalk and walking in between houses if he then got out of his car and started following them on foot. And I kid you not the response I most often got was "that is different". What the actual fuck? No, that is exactly the way Zimmerman HIMSELF said things went down. Zimmerman's own story was that he first followed Trayvon in his vehicle and then got out and sought him out on foot. And yet all these white folks can possibly think is that HE was the one defending himself, not the other way around. That is simply the mindset of deeply ingrained racism, which is abundant in rural, semi-rural, and even in many non-rural parts of Florida. And certainly Seminole County. Racism abounds in these here parts.

No way did Zimmerman pull that gun out during a struggle in which the kid was on top of him. Zimmerman fully admitted that he never explained himself to Trayvon, never told him who he was or why he was following him. According to Zimmerman no words at all were spoken.

[Suranis]

My read always was that Trayvon Martin kicked the shit of Zimmerman after Zimmerman attacked him. Then as Martin was walking away Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot the kid that had humiliated him.

The fact that Martin hit with his off hand (as came out in the trial) meant that he was leading with the hand that was not holding the shopping, which is what you do if you are attacked. You don't have time to set your shopping down to work with your strong hand in that case.

[Dave from down under]

Not using a gun to defend against a follower of the Great God GUNN (all praise his name 2A 2A 2A) is a SIN and HERESY punishable by death!

[raison de arizona]

It’s the reason for the season.

F6F2FC98-230B-4EA1-8993-4BF4EE82BE8A.png (475.75 KiB) Viewed 1094 times