Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

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

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

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

#301

Post by sugar magnolia »

Didn't that cop at Stoneman Douglas get fired (charged?) for basically standing around waiting for whatshisname to surrender to the cops? The instant he stopped firing he was no longer an "active shooter", right? At least until he fired the next shot.
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

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

#302

Post by neeneko »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:54 pm Yeah. Or maybe he was never an "active shooter" at all. Evidence for that is feeble or non-existent.
An active shooter is someone actively shooting. Their rationalization is largely irrelevant. I can buy that he was just a scared kid, but he was a scared kid who went to an event heavily armed with dreams of being heroic. He became an 'active shooter' the instant he decided to start shooting people.
Another hypothesis is that he was a scared kid who got attacked, ran, shot in self-defense, then tried to get to police. That makes a lot more sense of what we see. For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see, him never threatening much less shooting anyone who didn't attack him.
I partly agree that is plausible, but again, not sure how much it matters. He might have been fleeing simply to exit the conflict, or he might have been putting distance between himself and the people he dislikes in order to make better use of his ranged weapon... that he brought.. with the idea of being able to kill people at a distance.

Though the second bit, he went right by the police and kept going. The instant the police transitioned from 'my people who will protect me from the other' to 'I might be in trouble', he no longer went to them.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

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

#303

Post by Dave from down under »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:58 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:21 pm
For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see
I'm not the sharpest person in the room, but considering he walked past the police and went home, I'm not buying it.
He walked toward the police with hands up, looking for all the world like someone trying to surrender. Police ordered him to get out of the way and moved on to look after the injured. It's a very dramatic moment, but it was the preoccupied police who rejected his surrender attempt. His friend drove him back to Antioch IL and he went with his mother to turn himself in at the police station there a short time later.
Yeah - the police should have done their jobs and arrested Kyle earlier in the night when he was begging water from them when he was playing vigilante and before he started killing people.
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

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

#304

Post by Uninformed »

Came across this video and thought some of it was appropriate to this topic :mrgreen:

If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

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

#305

Post by Dave from down under »

Yeah.. but it is hard to run with an AR-15*...
much easier just to pull the trigger..

*Smith & Wesson M&P15
User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:48 pm
Verified:

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

#306

Post by Azastan »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:54 pm

Another hypothesis is that he was a scared kid who got attacked, ran, shot in self-defense, then tried to get to police. That makes a lot more sense of what we see. For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see, him never threatening much less shooting anyone who didn't attack him.
He was a kid illegally carrying a gun, who thought he was a strutting hero until reality set in. Then he turned into a scared kid, who shot someone who 'threatened' him.

You are so absorbed by the idea that this kid 'needed' a gun, that you just can't understand that other people see someone toting around a rifle as threatening.

Perhaps you can't understand it because you aren't a female, who knows exactly how men subtly convey the idea of a threat to women. It doesn't need to be said out loud, it's just an implication that violence will be done if that man doesn't have his way.

Toting around a rifle strapped to your body is a threat in a situation like that. Stop pretending it isn't.
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

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

#307

Post by Uninformed »

Somewhat irrelevant but in the UK any unauthorised person merely reported to be carrying a firearm in public is quite likely to end up being shot dead by the police. (Ok, 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms, freedum, blood of tyrants etc.). To me It really is quite boggling that any sane person would support random private citizens going to a demo/protest or whatever armed.
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#308

Post by andersweinstein »

neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:22 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:54 pm Yeah. Or maybe he was never an "active shooter" at all. Evidence for that is feeble or non-existent.
An active shooter is someone actively shooting. Their rationalization is largely irrelevant. I can buy that he was just a scared kid, but he was a scared kid who went to an event heavily armed with dreams of being heroic. He became an 'active shooter' the instant he decided to start shooting people.
Someonewho shoots only in self-defense when attacked does not automatically become an "active shooter" as that term is normally used.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#309

Post by bob »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:32 pm
Someonewho shoots only in self-defense when attacked does not automatically become an "active shooter" as that term is normally used.
Anthony Huber's father called the defendant an "active shooter."

Shirley this grieving father will appreciate your point of view.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

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

#310

Post by neeneko »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:32 pm Someonewho shoots only in self-defense when attacked does not automatically become an "active shooter" as that term is normally used.
The usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter. Shooters always have some reason.. the 'fame' and 'revenge' ones are pretty simple to sort, but a lot of them have also been 'brought gun, got into fight, shot person in self defense'. When it is a fight you start with the assumption that being armed means the other person will defer to you is not really self defense.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#311

Post by bob »

neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:41 pmThe usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter.
Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)
Image ImageImage
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#312

Post by andersweinstein »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:48 pm
neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:41 pmThe usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter.
Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)
Right, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be. In every case he is fleeing and in every case he only shot people who attacked him and left everybody else alone, including people who came up on him and visibly pulled up. This is a most basic obvious fact about these events. There is no evidence he theatened anybody. There is evidence this started with an unprovoked ambush by Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence. I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified. But god, at least recognize this ovious fact that he was a defensive shooter only. I mean, that's just the prima facie appearance on the video, a guy running away and shooting at the last minute at people who attack him. He doesn't even look like an active shooter in any of the shootings, he looks like a guy running for his life.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

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

#313

Post by pipistrelle »

The contortions are making my head spin.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#314

Post by bob »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pmRight, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be.
Other than the two people he actually killed, of course.
There is no evidence he theatened anybody.
Other than actually shooting multiple people with an AR-15, of course.
I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence.
"Active shooter" literally means actively attempting to kill people. Did that AR-15 fire itself?
Image ImageImage
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

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

#315

Post by Patagoniagirl »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm
bob wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:48 pm
neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:41 pmThe usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter.
Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)
Right, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be. In every case he is fleeing and in every case he only shot people who attacked him and left everybody else alone, including people who came up on him and visibly pulled up. This is a most basic obvious fact about these events. There is no evidence he theatened anybody. There is evidence this started with an unprovoked ambush by Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence. I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified. But god, at least recognize this ovious fact that he was a defensive shooter only. I mean, that's just the prima facie appearance on the video, a guy running away and shooting at the last minute at people who attack him. He doesn't even look like an active shooter in any of the shootings, he looks like a guy running for his life.
How many time did he fire, how many bullets? Does a person wielding a bag or skateboard not seem like a lesser threat? Had I seen someone who had a weapon like this, would I be justified to attempt to disarm him? I would be a hero. He ran point of people to shoot.

Thankfully, Anders will not be on the jury. Any DA worth his salt would have him disqualified.

This justifications all makes me sick. I'm gonna step away.

p.s. Anders, are you interested in anything but this mini-terrorist active shooter?
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#316

Post by Gregg »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:30 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:21 pm
For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see
I'm not the sharpest person in the room, but considering he walked past the police and went home, I'm not buying it.
But Kyle’s defence is he was justified in doing what he did.

So why would he need to surrender to the police when he committed no crime!
Yeah, we need to just go ahead and give the kid a medal.

Maybe have the victims' families present it, would that be enough?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#317

Post by Gregg »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm
bob wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:48 pm
neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:41 pmThe usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter.
Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)
Right, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be. In every case he is fleeing and in every case he only shot people who attacked him and left everybody else alone, including people who came up on him and visibly pulled up. This is a most basic obvious fact about these events. There is no evidence he theatened anybody. There is evidence this started with an unprovoked ambush by Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence. I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified. But god, at least recognize this ovious fact that he was a defensive shooter only. I mean, that's just the prima facie appearance on the video, a guy running away and shooting at the last minute at people who attack him. He doesn't even look like an active shooter in any of the shootings, he looks like a guy running for his life.
He probably wouldn't have been nearly as scared or had the need to use an assault rifle IF HE HAD BEEN HOME, IN ANOTHER STATE, WATCHING THE PHUCKING TV.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#318

Post by Gregg »

pipistrelle wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:09 pm The contortions are making my head spin.
IKR?

Its almost Trumpian. Its like a Bill Barr Senate Hearing. "I can't wrap my head around the term 'active shooter'''. :crazy:
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#319

Post by andersweinstein »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:13 pm
I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence.
"Active shooter" literally means actively attempting to kill people. Did that AR-15 fire itself?
Per Wikipedia, 'Active shooter or active killer describes the perpetrator of a type of mass murder marked by rapidity, scale, randomness, and often suicide, usually associated with the United States. The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."'

Just in general, do you think someone who shoots in self-defense in response to attacks can still be called an "active shooter" because their gun didn't fire itself? Because I don't. To me an "active shooter" is a type of intentional murderer, like a school or workplace shooter who goes around picking off victims.

Bottom line is that it will be disputed that he was any kind of "active shooter". The jury will be able to see and judge the evidence for that. Prosecution will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he DIDN'T act in self-defense. That looks very hard to me on these facts, though jury can always come back with second-degree homicide for unnecessary defensive force.

Again, here are the facts I am referring to which "we", meaning anyone, can see on video of the shootings:

- In each shooting he is seen trying to flee
- In each shooting he shoots someone who is attacking him
- In each shooting he does not shoot until the attacker is right up against him
- He never shoots anyone who doesn't attack him.
- When people running at him pulled up and stopped, he also pulled up.
- He is never seen raising his weapon or pointing it anybody when he was not under attack
- He told Grosskgreutz he was going to get the police and he was in fact running straight toward their lights which everyone could see
- He walked slowly hands up by the police and tried to communicate with them (but was ordered away).

I also think there is other evidence that he was the victim of a wholly unprovoked attack by Rosenbaum and Ziminski. But I can stick to the above since those facts are more widely known.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

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

#320

Post by Dave from down under »

Hopefully the jury can see beyond the apologia and hold the killer to account for his premeditated acts.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

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

#321

Post by Dave from down under »

By the by…,

Anders arguments have succeeded!

I am now firmly convinced of Kyle’s guilt and the need for the death penalty!

My journey from liberal rehabilitate to right-wing capital punishment advocate - a study in descent from hope.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

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

#322

Post by andersweinstein »

Dave from down under wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:52 am Hopefully the jury can see beyond the apologia and hold the killer to account for his premeditated acts.
Prosecution has never argued his acts were premeditated. The first shooting is not even charged as intentional homicide but rather first-degree reckless homicide.

(Technically a reckless act could also be premeditated, but still. They are not charging him as an intentional murderer at the start.)
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

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

#323

Post by Dave from down under »

You have convinced me that he illegally armed himself to be a vigilante looking for an opportunity to use his gun as part of his sick fantasy.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

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

#324

Post by sugar magnolia »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified.
Some of us don't actually give a good fuck what you object to. You apparently have no actual legal education or experience to interpret laws, nor can you see how the situation will be perceived by the jurors. They obviously won't have the advantage of your questionable perspective of how the law should be parsed. They will only have their own observations and the ACTUAL interpretations of ACTUAL law by ACTUAL lawyers during their deliberations. Multiple real lawyers, including at least one licensed in the very state this trial will take place in, have patiently tried to explain to you the application of the law and yet you cling to your own interpretations, which will ultimately result in your disappointment at the verdict. Consider the fogbow posters as a mini mock trial jury.
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

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

#325

Post by neeneko »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence.
TBH, I mostly agree. But I am also trying to point out that 'active shooter' is a very subjective concept and is mostly rooted in, as I said, how much you empathize with the shooter as opposed to a description of their actions. 'active shooter' has been used in cases where a person shows up with a gun without intent to use it and then does when things do not go their way. robberies are a simple example of this, as are fights that escalate. Which TBH, this case falls comfortably into that last category. You describe the initial confrontation as an 'ambush', but he was the heavily armed paramilitary out patrolling for brown people. You say he was running, but he had just killed someone for their group affiliation, others from that group had a vested interest in being next. You say he went to police, but he didn't, including he kept running while people were trying to tell police he was the shooter and police ignored them because the shooter was on their side while the protesters were the enemy.

He went in with an 'obey me or die' framing. Yes, it was 'self defense' in the existential way.. people did not obey and respect him, even confronted him, so they died.
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”