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

[andersweinstein]

He could have satisfied his need for self defence by using this highly advanced, 100% effective self defence technique.

Of course he DID try that technique -- video shows him running away from every one of his assailants as fast as he could. He looks like someone who wanted to get away from the fight! Unfortunately, I don't think you can plausibly say it is 100% effective: your assailant may give chase and be faster than you are, or might knock you to the ground.

[andersweinstein]

but.. he didn't purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P15 himself - he got his friend to because he didn't think that legally he could have bought it..

he didn't buy full metal jacket rounds for it so that it could more effectively go through body armour and cover and people

It's pretty well established he bought the gun earlier in the spring to shoot clay pigeons with his best friend Dominick Black on Black's family property "up North" (as they say in Wisconsin) which they did on at least one occasion. Step-dad insisted it be kept in a gun safe, but moved it out of there during the riots in case there was trouble, which allowed Rittenhouse to take it to the protest. As I recall Rittenhouse's testimony was that he didn't know much about ammo ("bullets are bullets" or something like that) and when he took the gun to the protest he just went with the ammo that was already in it.

[Uninformed]

An S&W MP15 for clay pigeon shooting

[Dave from down under]

[andersweinstein]

He said he would shoot people at protests, he shot people at protests.

He never said he would shoot people at protests. He DID express a fantasy to his friend of shooting apparent shoplifters at a CVS -- while sitting safely in his car and doing nothing but calling 911.

The state never made any allegation his acts were premeditated. They tried to introduce this as evidence of similar actions, not state of mind.

[neonzx]

An S&W MP15 for clay pigeon shooting

I know, right.. but "Anders" is here to mansplain us.

[raison de arizona]

Rittenhouse is on tape a week before the shootings fantasizing about using his AR to shoot looters. He was looking for trouble.

[andersweinstein]

An S&W MP15 for clay pigeon shooting

In his testimony he said he and Dominick Black went to the gun store looking for a shotgun, but the store was out, so rather than go to another store they settled for the AR-15. This is a minor detail and you may well believe he was lying about it to present things in a better light, but there was nothing to contradict it. He did admit he thought it looked cool.

Certainly when they bought the rifles in the spring and actually used them for shooting clay pigeons (per Dominick Black's police interview), they could not have envisioned their use at a protest in August. That would have been before the murder of George Floyd and resulting wave of protests.

ETA: it sounds like it was more like target practice. From an auto-generated transcript of Black's testimony:

We own property in lady Smith. Every year growing up, I would go there with my stepdad and my brother. And go hunt. Ever since I was a little kid.
When you say hunt, what sort of things would you
um, deer, turkey? pheasant rabbit?
Can you describe your family's property? And Lady Smith for us?
Oh, yeah, it's about I want to say 13 acres of land with some what we would call a shooting range. So that like a big open gravel pit. And it's pretty secluded and private in the woods.
You mentioned that the defendant was interested in hunting. Did you ever bring him along hunting up in lady Smith?
I wouldn't say hunting. I did. We did bring him once to go kind of just get a feel for hunting and shoot guns and just kind of get away for the weekend.
Do you remember when that was?
I would like to say a few months before everything happened.
...
After the gun was purchased in lady Smith, did the defendant use it? Yes. Tell us about that.
We just target practice. We bought a pretty good amount of ammo, and just shot clay pigeons, and just went to the woods in our property.
Now, you mentioned earlier, there was some sort of, I think you said a shooting range on the property. Is that right? Can you describe that for us, please?
It's about 250 yards long. It's an old gravel pit that these are used to, obviously get gravel. It kind of just turned into the shooting range for us as a big open field.
Did you and the defendant shoot your AR fifteens? On that shooting range? Yes. You mentioned it was about 250 yards long did you have targets that far away?
Not entirely. It was, I mean, more at the time, we it was just like iron sights, so there wasn't a realistic range to shoot. We would set up clay pigeons hanging on trees at the end of the range and just kind of walk a certain amount of distance until we felt comfortable. It was the right spot.

[pipistrelle]

An S&W MP15 for clay pigeon shooting

They stay dead though, don’t they?

[Dave from down under]

He said he would shoot people at protests, he shot people at protests.

He never said he would shoot people at protests. He DID express a fantasy to his friend of shooting apparent shoplifters at a CVS -- while sitting safely in his car and doing nothing but calling 911.

The state never made any allegation his acts were premeditated. They tried to introduce this as evidence of similar actions, not state of mind.

The state failed to show premeditation

The jury failed to see through Kyle’s lies or were willing to overlook them.

Because fantasising about executing people for property crime is so much a feature of Gun culture/worship.

He armed himself to be a vigilante and then he went looking for someone to shoot.

Damn right he should have been convicted of premeditated murder.

If you wanted a gun just to be able to intimidate,
You could buy a replica.

But if you have a loaded gun - then you have premeditated shooting someone.

You can make what ever excuse you like for Kyle the killer, each time you do, you make the argument that guns shouldn’t be in private hands in public places.
And that laws that legitimise private gun use on others are fundamentally flawed.

[andersweinstein]

But if you have a loaded gun - then you have premeditated shooting someone.

Curious, do you say this about Gaige Grosskreutz who also went to the protest with a loaded gun? Or Joshua Ziminski who fired into the air as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot? Or about Garrett Foster who was killed by Daniel Perry at a BLM protest in Austin while openly carrying an assault weapon?

[Suranis]

Wow. All that video that no-one else has seen showing him running away as fast as he could rather than shooting. Got it.

I wonder are there any other TVs with special video in them.

And its invalid theoretically someone might have been faster and stronger than Kyle, especially a guy who, in the lie before this, was apparently just let out of confinement where he would have he had no exercise and be totally out of condition which means that in actuality he wouldn't have been able to keep up with hero cute Kyle at all.

Especially Since Kyle pretended to be a lifeguard and that's where he got his "first aid" training. Lifeguarding being a job which requires a certain amount of physical fitness.

That means that if Hunky Kyle had decided to run away, he would have got away really easily, since it was a reasonably fit guy vs an unfit guy.

Especially when the crowd would have stopped the other guy chasing him. And I know that because in the endless Andy Ngo vids, people always stepped in to pull the fighting guys apart and defuse the situation.

So Kyle was never in any actual danger. If he CHOSE not to run away, and he chose not to run away, someone would have stepped in to stop the other guy beating him up and drag him away, just like people tried to step in to try and stop Kyle killing someone, and as a result got shot themselves.

I think if people tried to jump on a guy with an Assault Weapon to stop him, they would absolutely have jumped on a guy with a skateboard to stop him

And if he ran away, people would have stopped the guy as well. So, again, your talk about Kyle Vs Jesse Owens is meaningless as people would have stopped the guy, just as they tried to stop Kyle shooting people.

But Kyle decided to fulfill his murder fantasies on the crowd that had ruined his chances of looking like a big man in front of a reporter. That's Murder 2. And then fulfilled his fantasies on people that were trying to stop him fulfilling his murder fantasies.

I wonder what arbitrary theoretical defences will get pulled out of the ass of LOVE next.

Oh and OJ Simpson was acquitted, but he still did it. Even wrote a book saying "if I did it." Soo...

[Dave from down under]

But if you have a loaded gun - then you have premeditated shooting someone.

Curious, do you say this about Gaige Grosskreutz who also went to the protest with a loaded gun? Or Joshua Ziminski who fired into the air as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot? Or about Garrett Foster who was killed by Daniel Perry at a BLM protest in Austin while openly carrying an assault weapon?

Yes

Anyone with a real gun for use in any circumstances on another person - even if just to threaten/intimidate them.

The concept that a civilian is entitled to be judge, jury and executioner is so flawed as to be insane.

That is why a sane society has a reputable capable police force - for the application of reasonable force*.


* and yes they need to be held accountable for every use and every moment on duty.

[andersweinstein]

Rittenhouse is on tape a week before the shootings fantasizing about using his AR to shoot looters. He was looking for trouble.

If you think he was looking to shoot people, why, on your view was he running away from Rosenbaum? Why didn't he shoot Grosskreutz when Grosskreutz pulled up, but only when Grosskreutz advanced on him with gun hand down? Why didn't he shoot any of the others in the crowd he could easily have shot if he wanted to, instead shooting ONLY people who were attacking him and only at the last minute when there was no alternative? That is not the profile of someone who wants to shoot anyone. But it fits perfectly for a purely defensive shooter who only shoots to defend himself.

[andersweinstein]

But if you have a loaded gun - then you have premeditated shooting someone.

Curious, do you say this about Gaige Grosskreutz who also went to the protest with a loaded gun? Or Joshua Ziminski who fired into the air as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot? Or about Garrett Foster who was killed by Daniel Perry at a BLM protest in Austin while openly carrying an assault weapon?

Yes

Anyone with a real gun for use in any circumstances on another person - even if just to threaten/intimidate them.

The concept that a civilian is entitled to be judge, jury and executioner is so flawed as to be insane.

That is why a sane society has a reputable capable police force - for the application of reasonable force*.


* and yes they need to be held accountable for every use and every moment on duty.

OK, but then it is sounding like you have a beef with the law. Self-defense law distinguishes self-defense from vigilante administration of justice. The right to use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself is quite deeply entrenched in our legal tradition. And it has nothing specially to do with guns. The right to use force in defence of your life could allow use of different deadly-force-capable implements to defend yourself and it would have nothing to do with guns.

[Dave from down under]

Rittenhouse is on tape a week before the shootings fantasizing about using his AR to shoot looters. He was looking for trouble.

If you think he was looking to shoot people, why, on your view was he running away from Rosenbaum? Why didn't he shoot Grosskreutz when Grosskreutz pulled up, but only when Grosskreutz advanced on him with gun hand down? Why didn't he shoot any of the others in the crowd he could easily have shot if he wanted to, instead shooting ONLY people who were attacking him and only at the last minute when there was no alternative? That is not the profile of someone who wants to shoot anyone. But it fits perfectly for a purely defensive shooter who only shoots to defend himself.

That actually is a very clear profile of a young sociopathic killer.

Oh - and look he was.

He was living his fantasies - including getting away with killing 2 people and maiming another.

The moment he decided to be an armed vigilante is the moment he because a potential killer - then he went on to kill 2.

His actions.

[Suranis]

Or Joshua Ziminski who fired into the air as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot?

I'm shocked the Anders of KyleLove is admitting that people were already trying to stop Rosenbaum, just as I said would happen. Meaning that Kyle was NOT justified in "self defence" as people were already mobilizing to defend his dumb ass, even in the scenario he is lying about.

Especially since the "chase" was actually Kyle WALKING into the parking lot with Rosenbaum walking in the same direction as him.

And the other people didn't have their assault weapon hanging around their neck in full view of everyone, a situation that was by its very nature going to antagonize people. As exhibited by Hunky Kyle getting told to fuck off by people he was "trying to help" because they regarded him as a clueless and stupid gun nut putting on a performance.

The other person with the loaded gun had it concealed, did not have public fantasies about shooting people, and was actually helping people with equipment that did not just include a box of plasters and an assault weapon slung around his neck, and was NOT being told to fuck off by people he was actually helping.

So one guy had his dick in full view being a public threat to people which is why they told him to back off, and the other person was NOT displaying his dick and was therefore was NOT antagonizing people. False equivalence.

And ya, no-one should have a gun at a protest. It is by definition a highly volatile situation. If they did it in Ireland they all would be facing 10 years in jail just for carrying them.

This has been kinda fun but I'm done.

[Dave from down under]

Curious, do you say this about Gaige Grosskreutz who also went to the protest with a loaded gun? Or Joshua Ziminski who fired into the air as Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot? Or about Garrett Foster who was killed by Daniel Perry at a BLM protest in Austin while openly carrying an assault weapon?

Yes

Anyone with a real gun for use in any circumstances on another person - even if just to threaten/intimidate them.

The concept that a civilian is entitled to be judge, jury and executioner is so flawed as to be insane.

That is why a sane society has a reputable capable police force - for the application of reasonable force*.


* and yes they need to be held accountable for every use and every moment on duty.

OK, but then it is sounding like you have a beef with the law. Self-defense law distinguishes self-defense from vigilante administration of justice. The right to use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself is quite deeply entrenched in our legal tradition. And it has nothing specially to do with guns. The right to use force in defence of your life could allow use of different deadly-force-capable implements to defend yourself and it would have nothing to do with guns.

This has everything to do with a Smith & Wesson M&P15

If he didn't have a gun - would Kyle or Rossenburg likely have died?

[andersweinstein]

This has everything to do with a Smith & Wesson M&P15

If he didn't have a gun - would Kyle or Rossenburg likely have died?

I agree with you that if Rittenhouse was not carrying a gun, Rosenbaum most likely would not have attacked him and no one would have died. I don't think this 100% certain since Rosenbaum might have been angry even at someone merely presuming to put out fires he wanted to set and he seems to me to be a very aggressive person, more dangerous than Rittenhouse. But of course it is also less likely that conflict would have ended with fatalities. I personally favor much stricter gun control and think open carry is insane.

But ... wishes for a different legal regime are irrelevant to the case. WI decided open carry is legal, and once that decision is made, merely engaging in legal open carry behavior is not sufficient to justify someone else's attack. Rittenhouse had a legal right to do what he was doing unmolested by criminal attacks on his person. And it is not like Rittenhouse was the only one carrying a gun into a love-in.

Also, while some localities have tried to enact laws exemplifying the principle, it seems hard to do, because you do have to retain the right to defend yourself.

Say a shopkeeper is beset by gangs and gets a gun to defend himself. The gang members are so offended they attack him, and he does defend himself. Shouldn't we still blame the attackers? "Your gun made me attack you" seems dubious as a general principle and in many cases will result in victim blaming. There are law-abiding people in this country who carry guns for self-defense, whether wisely or not, and occasionally do wind up having to use them in self-defense.

[Maybenaut]

There us a scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise is practicing questions meant to lead a witness away from intent, and after 4 or 5 more or less convincing thoughts he asks " Is there any reason at all to suspect this hurt anyone at all?"

And his co-counsel answers "Aside from the dead body?"

When someone argues self-defense, they don't deny that they hurt people. If all you're doing is saying "what about these dead and maimed bodies" and stopping there, you're just begging the question against his claim to have acted in reasonable self-defense.

I think everyone, even people who disagree with me, ought to acknowledge at least that he had a strong self-defense claim under the law.

I’m willing to acknowledge that *the jury* thought his self-defense claim was, at a minimum, reasonably plausible. I wouldn’t speculate beyond that - I wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether they thought it was “strong,” for example.

[Dave from down under]

Kyle equipped himself to kill, then he went and killed.

He got away with it because doing so was acceptable to the jury and the lawmakers.

Please do keep pointing out that guns are the reason for people being maimed/killed un-necessarily.

ps. Kyle would have been facing 14 years in jail here had he played vigilante, even before he killed 2 and maimed 1.

But let's play with your view that lethal force is justifiable when-ever you fear for your safety..
Kyle has shown his willingness to use a firearm to kill.
if you see Kyle on the street, he may be concealed carrying, you thus have every valid reason to fear for your safety from Kyle,
Just as well you have a firearm for self-defense.. best to put at least 4 bullets into him to be sure..
before he can shoot you.

[andersweinstein]

I think everyone, even people who disagree with me, ought to acknowledge at least that he had a strong self-defense claim under the law.

I’m willing to acknowledge that *the jury* thought his self-defense claim was, at a minimum, reasonably plausible. I wouldn’t speculate beyond that - I wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether they thought it was “strong,” for example.

I simply meant a self-defense case with a good chance of winning, that is, getting him acquitted by the jury. I don't mean the jury assessed its strength.

From my perspective as a non-lawyer, the prosecution had very little evidence inconsistent with his self-defense claims, and some of their witnesses' testimony even strengthened his case. This is admittedly a more subjective assessment.

[Gregg]

If his ass had been in another state, where he lived, playing Call of Duty in the living room, two people wouldn't have died.

And he might have still got his Commando Orgasm.

[andersweinstein]

If his ass had been in another state, where he lived, playing Call of Duty in the living room, two people wouldn't have died.

If Rosenbaum hadn't attacked him, nobody would have died either. Hell, if not for the accident that Rosenbaum got discharged and dumped on the street that night, no one would have died, since he was the only one crazy enough to attack someone carrying an AR-15.

In general, you don't blame the innocent victim of a criminal attack for being in the place where a criminal can attack him. You blame the attacker.

[Dave from down under]

If his ass had been in another state, where he lived, playing Call of Duty in the living room, two people wouldn't have died.

And he might have still got his Commando Orgasm.

Yes..
he could have...

but he wouldn't have got to kill 2 people and get away with it..
he wouldn't be the darling of the "right to kill" cult, etc.
he wouldn't be famous, and have the girlfriend, the truck, the cash..

He certainly shows no regrets or remorse*.

*sneeze crying doesn't count