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

[bob]

It looks to me like there is no evidence he acted like a vigilante or intended to be a vigilante.

Other than people he killed, of course.

Many people pointed out that "active shooter" is not a *legal* concept and I've always agreed.

Many people also pointed out the Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and that "active shooter" isn't relevant to this case.

Yet here we still are, for some reason.

* * *

You have convinced me that he was a vigilante who illegally armed himself to play out his sick fantasy of killer/saviour.

When the attempt to persuade has had the opposite effect, you could reconsider your position or your tactics.

Or you could double down because you don't care what others believe.

[Dave from down under]

Kyle might enjoy these while anticipating his next few years...

Combat Medic Special Ops Cheats & Codes for PC ...
www.cheatcodes.com/combat-medic-special-ops-pc

[Gregg]

I've heard more reasoned and convincing arguments about the revaluation of the Iraqi Dinar, from people who were more reasonable about the evidence to the contrary.

Dude, we get it, you think the little wannabe Fascist who should have stayed home and beat off to the original Red Dawn* is innocent because... reasons.

Will you go away now?

* I get it, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey and lots of shit getting blown up. But it was a movie FFS. You need to process that.

[andersweinstein]

It looks to me like there is no evidence he acted like a vigilante or intended to be a vigilante.

Other than people he killed, of course.

I am quite sure you understand that when a defendant argues self-defense, they don't deny that they committed the acts alleged by the prosecution, for example that they shot or killed people. But that means that in pointing out facts like "he killed two people" which are not in dispute, one is not citing evidence that differentially supports one or the other side, for example the claim that he acted as a vigilante.

Yet reiterating a point that simply begs the question of his having a viable self-defense case continues to happen here.

When the attempt to persuade has had the opposite effect, you could reconsider your position or your tactics.

Or you could double down because you don't care what others believe.

And why doesn't that apply equally to some of the interlocutors who disagree with me? They don't seem any more persuadable.

I have a position which disagrees with the consensus of some people on here. I'm aware some people handle disagreement poorly. I try to deal with that by modeling the ethic of dialog I would wish to receive from others: give reasons, cite sources where relevant, treat interlocutors respectfully, keep everything on substance and refrain from personal comments. I realize that is not always going to work. But I have the idea that as long as I stick to that ethic of dialogue, it shouldn't be objectionable merely to disagree.

[Dave from down under]

In a while he will go to trial.

He may be found guilty of some/all/none of the charges.

Regardless
The two people he killed will still be dead and he will still have killed them.

[sugar magnolia]

And why doesn't that apply equally to some of the interlocutors who disagree with me? They don't seem any more persuadable.

I have a position which disagrees with the consensus of some people on here. I'm aware some people handle disagreement poorly.

You're seriously trying to "persuade" people that your interpretation of black letter law is just as valid as an experienced professional's is? Looking at a tree and saying it's an aardvark is not a "disagreement", it's just wrong. Refusing to entertain the idea that it's an aardvark is not handling a disagreement poorly, it's just pointing out a fact.

[bill_g]

Attention: Clean up on aisle three please. There's been a blood letting.

[andersweinstein]

And why doesn't that apply equally to some of the interlocutors who disagree with me? They don't seem any more persuadable.

I have a position which disagrees with the consensus of some people on here. I'm aware some people handle disagreement poorly.

You're seriously trying to "persuade" people that your interpretation of black letter law is just as valid as an experienced professional's is? Looking at a tree and saying it's an aardvark is not a "disagreement", it's just wrong. Refusing to entertain the idea that it's an aardvark is not handling a disagreement poorly, it's just pointing out a fact.

I simply don't find it accurate to represent the core disagreement as me constantly disagreeing with experts on matters of *law*. It seems to me the overwhelming majority of the disagreement is not on law at all, but on the facts and what they support. By that I mean facts based on what we the public can know of them now from video and reporting -- not necessarily what will make it before the jury.

Yes, I will discuss matters of law as I understand them. But I'm always really happy to learn from experts if I have any mistake on the law, or to get expert perspective on matters of the trial. If I'm wrong on law, I'm wrong, no biggie.

In a few cases I believe people mis-interpret certain claims of mine unfairly as claims about law to mobilize the self-flattering trope of expert schooling amateur on matters of law, but I just let it go.

[raison de arizona]

It looks to me like there is no evidence he acted like a vigilante or intended to be a vigilante.

What about the video where he laments that he doesn't have his AR, because if he had his AR, he would literally right then shoot the people that he suspected of looting?

[andersweinstein]

It looks to me like there is no evidence he acted like a vigilante or intended to be a vigilante.

What about the video where he laments that he doesn't have his AR, because if he had his AR, he would literally right then shoot the people that he suspected of looting?

Oh, OK. I was talking about evidence from video of how he was behaving in Kenosha that night. He isn't seen seeking out confrontation, he wasn't seen confronting looters or actively pursuing vigilante activity. It doesn't look like he was acting against looters in the first shooting in Kenosha.

My personal take on the CVS video: It always amazes me how easily people forget what they tacitly know about human nature. Maybe 99999 of 100000 people who say "I'd like to kill him" or whatever are just idly venting, expressing a fantasy, not a real threat. This goes double for a male teen before a buddy. I grant the fact that he did actually show up with his AR in a riot zone could make one wonder. Maybe he is the very rare case who is not just expressing himself via idle fantasy, but would actually act out on it. But representing a teen mouthing off to a buddy while sitting in a car as if it were some kind of very conclusive evidence seems far-fetched. Talk like that is so cheap. At the time he just sat in the car and called 911.

But that's just me. You are right that is some public evidence.

[raison de arizona]

Hearing may settle use-of-force experts at Rittenhouse trial

A judge may decide at a hearing Monday whether use-of-force experts can testify at Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial for shooting three people during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin last year.

The hearing is likely the last before Rittenhouse goes on trial Nov. 1 for the shootings that came during chaotic demonstrations in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, two days after a white police officer in that city shot a Black man, Jacob Blake, in the back while responding to a domestic disturbance.

Rittenhouse, 18, of Antioch, Illinois, was among a number of people who responded to calls on social media to take up arms and come to Kenosha to respond to the protests.

Rittenhouse’s attorneys are seeking testimony from use-of-force expert John Black to bolster their case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Prosecutors have asked Judge Bruce Schroeder to disqualify Black, arguing that his expertise is in police, not civilian, use of force and is not relevant to Rittenhouse’s actions.

Black previewed his testimony at a hearing in early October. Monday’s hearing will include testimony from Robert Willis, a use-of-force expert whom Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger has said he will use if Black is allowed to testify.

Other motions remain for Schroeder to decide before trial. One, from prosecutors, asks Schroeder to forbid defense attorneys from describing the three white men Rittenhouse shot as rioters, looters or arsonists. Binger argues there’s no proof any of the three were engaged in such activities the night they were shot.

Prosecutors also want Schroeder to block any reference to Rosenbaum’s and Huber’s criminal records.

They are also seeking to stop the defense from introducing any evidence that police offered water to Rittenhouse and other armed citizens, or that they said, “We appreciate you guys, we really do,” to them.

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-po ... 490a40223c

[bob]

But that means that in pointing out facts like "he killed two people" which are not in dispute, one is not citing evidence that differentially supports one or the other side, for example the claim that he acted as a vigilante.

Dead people can be evidence of vigilantism, all apologists notwithstanding. But always glad to be told what are acceptable evidence and inferences and what are not.

Yet reiterating a point that simply begs the question of his having a viable self-defense case continues to happen here.

The "just saying there's a viable self-defense" train left the station long, long ago. Acknowledging self-defense is best possible defense for this case and feverishly championing it are altogether different.

They don't seem any more persuadable.

"Persuadable" and "persuasive" are not synonymous. That you haven't been persuaded doesn't mean others aren't making more persuasive arguments.

I realize that is not always going to work.

Also not working is shading every fact and argument, or giving only one side the benefit of every possible inference while casually dismissing others' reasonable inferences.

Also not working is not learning from these oft-expressed criticisms.

I simply don't find it accurate to represent the core disagreement as me constantly disagreeing with experts on matters of *law*. It seems to me the overwhelming majority of the disagreement is not on law at all, but on the facts and what they support.

Even that is "inaccurate."

But I'm always really happy to learn from experts if I have any mistake on the law, or to get expert perspective on matters of the trial. If I'm wrong on law, I'm wrong, no biggie.

The irony of writing that after composing tomes on the meaning "active shooter" while relying an online encyclopedia. "Credibility, what does it even mean?"

I just let it go.

Maybe 99999 of 100000 people who say "I'd like to kill him" or whatever are just idly venting, expressing a fantasy, not a real threat.

Because no other murder defendant has ever attempted to hadwaive away direct evidence of their intent as idle talk.

"The prosecutor must present extraordinary evidence of the defendant's intent!"
"Here are his words saying that he wants to kill."
"Not like that!"

But representing a teen mouthing off to a buddy while sitting in a car as if it were some kind of very conclusive evidence seems far-fetched.

"Please take my opinions as serious and reasonable as I insult yours!"

But that's just me.

Yathink?

[LM K]

Interesting. Your definition of evidence is very skewed.

There is NO evidence of an unprovoked ambush, attempted ambush, or intention to ambush.

Why would Rittenhouse assume a potential ambush when people all around him were running for cover after hearing multiple gunshots in the area? What "evidence" do you have to support that that is what Kyle was thinking?

And why ignore the fact that Rosenbaum was being chased by Rittenhouse? Isn't Rosenbaum allowed to protect himself when being chased by an armed man? Or are the rules different for Rittenhouse?

I have mentioned the evidence I was appealing to earlier. Again, briefly, after being trapped on the wrong side of a police barricade, Rittenhouse is seen on video running from a gas station at 60th st with a fire extinguisher and walking south alone down Sheridan Road, though Richie McGinnis picks him up and tails him. Rittenhouse continues chanting "anyone need medical" as he walks. At some point you can see Rosenbaum emerge from a group of people setting a small fire in the middle of the road. He walks ahead of Rittenhouse, with no sign of any interaction, then at some point breaks into a trot and runs ahead, apparently taking up a position behind a parked car.

Rosenbaum never stopped running. He never took "up a position".

According to McGinnis' eyewitness testimony in the criminal complaint, when Rittenhouse got at the lot it was Rosenbaum who tried to engage him and tried to get closer. Rittenhouse made a juke move and ran. What is visible on video is Rittenhouse fleeing Rosenbaum, not the other way around.

I'm not referring to when Rittenhouse got to the lot. I'm referring to the events that happened in response to gunfire. And you know that.

Rosenbaum was absolutely in front of Rittenhouse once gunshots were fired.

The defense theory is that Rosenbaum ran ahead to take up a position from which to accost Rittenhouse in a kind of ambush. Josh Ziminski, on the other side of the car, also participated, shouting "you aren't going to do shit motherfucker" and firing his gun into the air.

NOTHING in the videos or the criminal complaint supports the defense's theory. The defense doesn't know what Rosenbaum was thinking.

So, if there is no evidence, why do you assume Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse? And why are you so adamant in your assumption?

Rosenbaum was seen earlier flying into a rage and behaving aggressively toward a different group of armed men at a gas station when someone there put out a fire in a dumpster which he had a hand in pushing. Rosenbaum shouted "shoot me, n****a" and had to be held back. Witnesses have stated he threatened to kill Kyle and made other threats against the armed men.

So what? Nothing in this confrontation suggests that Rosenbaum tried to hurt Rittenhouse. Or that Rosenbaum said that specifically to Kyle.

What witnesses are you referring to?

Although Rosenbaum's past will not be admissible evidence, it turns out he is an ex-con who lived from age 18 to 32 in Arizona state prison for raping young boys, had a no-contact order from his girlfriend for battering her, was homeless after being dumped onto the street on discharge from a psychiatric hospital after a suicide attempt, unable to get his meds, and does not seem to have had any interest in the Black Lives Matter cause (he had never been to a protest before and his girlfriend, who urged him not to go, said she had no idea why he went. The Washington Post claimed he "belonged to neither side" and represented their encounter as a non-political accident.)

Irrelevant. So why do you keep bringing this up?

Ex-cons have the right to not be killed. The mentally ill have the right to not be shot.

You appear to disagree. In fact, you think Rittenhouse did the right thing.

The Rittenhouse we see on video is not hostile to protestors, was there to protect property and give first aid to protestors as he said, and is never seen on video behaving aggressively or seeking out confrontation with protestors.

For those reasons I believe it is overwhelmingly more likely that Rosenbaum was the aggressor in this initial confrontation which looks like a kind of ambush.

Alas, Rittenhouse already had his gun in the ready position as he was running after Rosenbaum.

Nothing in the video looks like an ambush.

Not that it is legally relevant, but as a moral matter, it looks to me that Rosenbaum, though an exceptionally damaged individual, is a morally worse character than the misguided boy scout but basically decent Rittenhouse, and bears the responsibility for his own death by being aggressive enough to attack someone who brought a gun for self-defense with intent to do him harm. We should not be blaming the victim here! We should be blaming Rosenbaum, in my opinion.

Fuck that. Fuck ALL of that.

Rittenhouse is no victim. He's an idiot. He killed 2 men.

After that first shooting we have a more tragic situation. All evidence suggests Rittenhouse tried to run to the cops but encountered further interference with his person. But this post is long enough.

So, you support vigilante actions by Rittenhouse but not by those chasing him to stop him.

I am not sure why you believe Rosenbaum was running from Rittenhouse.

Hmmm. The video?

Why do you consistently ignore Rosenbaum's right to self-defense? If a guy armed with an AK was running behind me and got close enough for me to to touch him, I would reach for his gun, too.

[Gregg]

When is the trial?


I really can't wait to put this behind me. Still, FWIW, if everything I think I know now is true and proven in court, and I was on the jury, I couldn't vote to convict of a murder charge. Some other degree of homicide, probably, but the self defense argument, flimsy as it is, gives me reasonable doubt.

I hate to admit it, or more correctly hate that its true. But I'd acquit him of murder if asked.

[LM K]

My personal take on the CVS video: It always amazes me how easily people forget what they tacitly know about human nature. Maybe 99999 of 100000 people who say "I'd like to kill him" or whatever are just idly venting, expressing a fantasy, not a real threat. This goes double for a male teen before a buddy. I grant the fact that he did actually show up with his AR in a riot zone could make one wonder. Maybe he is the very rare case who is not just expressing himself via idle fantasy, but would actually act out on it. But representing a teen mouthing off to a buddy while sitting in a car as if it were some kind of very conclusive evidence seems far-fetched. Talk like that is so cheap. At the time he just sat in the car and called 911.

But that's just me. You are right that is some public evidence.

As a psychologist, I believe that there is a difference between "Omg, sometimes I just wanna kill my husband!" vs. "OMG, if I'd had a knife on me I would have used it and thrust it into my husband's brain!"

The first comment is an expression of anger/frustration. The second comment demonstrates a specific action one thinks they could engage in in response to anger/frustration. Does the second comment mean that I would stab my husband in the brain? No. But to label both comments as having the same meaning is incorrect.

What Rittenhouse said is quite disturbing. He had no relationship with the looters. His property and the property of people he knows weren't at risk. Rittenhouse had no personal emotional investment in what was happening. Which is why Rittenhouse's comment is so disturbing.

[LM K]

When is the trial?


I really can't wait to put this behind me. Still, FWIW, if everything I think I know now is true and proven in court, and I was on the jury, I couldn't vote to convict of a murder charge. Some other degree of homicide, probably, but the self defense argument, flimsy as it is, gives me reasonable doubt.

I hate to admit it, or more correctly hate that its true. But I'd acquit him of murder if asked.

I'd be unlikely to convict for murder, but yes, I believe Rittenhouse killed 2 and injured one on a criminal level.

I really wish Rittenhouse hadn't been there that night.

[bob]

Rittenhouse had no personal emotional investment in what was happening.

He had a part-time, seasonal job.

I'd be unlikely to convict for murder, but yes, I believe Rittenhouse killed 2 and injured one on a criminal level.

And this is a reasonable and brief belief: To acknowledge the prosecution's burden of proof might result in a not-guilty verdict to murder, while still believing there is some criminal culpability that will result in a conviction.

It is an actual, sincere "just saying there's a viable self-defense" sentiment. It isn't a serial, full-throated, voluminous justification for a series of incredibly bad decisions that left two people dead.

[raison de arizona]

When is the trial?

Nov. 1

[raison de arizona]

I really wish Rittenhouse hadn't been there that night.

Seriously. He was a child. He had no business out there with an AR. He was failed by all the adults in his life.

[Uninformed]

[sugar magnolia]

When is the trial?

Nov. 1

Is there some way to watch it online? I'll have 7 hours or so to kill on Nov 1 and I have a laptop and headphones.

[raison de arizona]

When is the trial?

Nov. 1

Is there some way to watch it online? I'll have 7 hours or so to kill on Nov 1 and I have a laptop and headphones.

CourtTV is carrying it. I dunno if they have an app or website or what besides cable though.

https://lawandcrime.com/ has been carrying a lot of it live too, I dunno if they are doing the actual trial though.

[pipistrelle]

I really wish Rittenhouse hadn't been there that night.

Seriously. He was a child. He had no business out there with an AR. He was failed by all the adults in his life.

My oldest brother was only a few months older when he answered Uncle Sam’s call. “Child” is an overstatement, but his mother is a piece of work.

[Dave from down under]

Thankfully where I live doesn't allow people to go around armed looking for conflict to claim that they killed in self defense.

(Kyle was just a criminal with a gun looking to kill and he did, twice)

[RVInit]

Just an interesting observation: most civilian medical professionals do not refer to themselves as "medics". That is usually a word used to describe a military personnel who are involved in giving first aid and emergency medical aid to fellow combatants. Rittenhouse referring to himself as a "medic" gives real insight into his perception of the activities he was engaging in. And a likely contributor to the fact that he was the only armed person who actually shot and killed anyone that night. He clearly viewed himself as a combatant engaged in some kind of military or police activity. Either he was a vigilante or something even worse.