The Kyle Rittenhouse trial:

[Subduction Zone]

In many of your pas posts, that's been your
automatic presumption about all of us who carry.
Knowing that broad brush prejudice is false, I'm
not inclined to trust your judgment in such matters.

However, such angry & overly aggressive individuals
do exist. I even know one Canuckistanian that way.
With an open mind, judge people as individuals.

Yeah! You gun owners are all alike

Actually I have been tempted to get a gun several times. And not just for how macho it makes me look. We all know that women go for men with odd bulges). Sometimes I have thought that it would be interesting to try elk hunting. Something legal in my state. Though if I succeeded I would have to have a means of hauling the elk to my vehicle. Still with a reasonable sized hunting party it should not be a problem. I don't know if I would ever get a handgun for self defense since I have never felt the need. But it is nice to know if needed I could get one rather easily. It might not even be a bad idea to get a concealed weapons permit. It makes getting a handgun much simpler. And as I said, they are easy to get in my state and not very expensive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah! You gun owners are all alike

Actually I have been tempted to get a gun several times. And not just for how macho it makes me look. We all know that women go for men with odd bulges). Sometimes I have thought that it would be interesting to try elk hunting. Something legal in my state. Though if I succeeded I would have to have a means of hauling the elk to my vehicle. Still with a reasonable sized hunting party it should not be a problem. I don't know if I would ever get a handgun for self defense since I have never felt the need. But it is nice to know if needed I could get one rather easily. It might not even be a bad idea to get a concealed weapons permit. It makes getting a handgun much simpler. And as I said, they are easy to get in my state and not very expensive.

If you do decide to carry concealed, get some training.
It's a great responsibility that can have grave consequences.
And keep that temper in check.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IR

IR? How do you pronounce that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I went hunting after all of these years I would probably come home with something like this:

Do you think that it would fool anyone?

 

[Revoltingest]

IR? How do you pronounce that?

"Errrrr"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not so sure about that. I do not know how much of value was left there. It appears that they might not have gotten everything that first night. And please, don't give me that "it's insured" line. There are still deductibles and other losses and we all end up in paying for it with higher premiums. That is an extremely irresponsible attitude to have.

Can you at least admit that one cannot claim them to be protesters when they turn violent? At that point they are rioters. And yes, doing malicious harm to property is by definition violence. Violence is not limited to actions against people.

When you say "only financial value" you should remember the adage "time is money". They are effectively stealing the lifetime of others. Take the average wages earned by a person over a year and you can translate the money lost into how much of a person's life is lost in replacing it.

So you think that, ultimately, they were defending the earnings of the shareholders of the insurance company?

Do you want me to take you seriously? Because this argument isn't the way to do it.

But worst of all this is all a huge red herring of those that are out looking for revenge rather than for justice. If you followed this thread I do think that Rittenhouse does deserve some prison time. But like it or not he is not guilty of murder. His reasons for being there matter no more than the sex crimes of Rosenbaum would in justifying his being shot.

Past criminal history of Rittenhouse or his victims is irrelevant. Rittenhouse's motives the night that he shot 3 people are very much relevant.

When it comes to deciding if it was murder or self defense one only needs to ask if Rittenhouse had a reasonable fear that his life was in danger. It is rather clear that he did.

No, it isn't.

It was Rosenbaum who was justified believing that his life was in danger when Rittenhouse aimed his gun at him. Everything else precipitated from that action of Rittenhouse's:

- Rosenbaum, legitimately in fear for his life, rushed Rittenhouse to get control of the gun pointed at him. Rittenhouse shot him.

- Huber, apparently thinking that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, tried to subdue him with what he had at hand (a skateboard). Rittenhouse shot him, too.

- Grosskreutz, also thinking that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, drew his own gun and pointed it at him. Rittenhouse shot him, too.

... so the one action that started the chain of events was Rittenhouse's decision to threaten the life of an unarmed man.

Rittenhouse was only in reasonable fear for his life to the extent that he had a reasonable expectation that bystanders would be justified in using deadly force against an active shooter.

By the way, who fired the first shot?

Seems that there were other shots fired in the general area, but the only shots exchanged between Rittenhouse and his victims were fired by Rittenhouse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think that, ultimately, they were defending the earnings of the shareholders of the insurance company?

Do you want me to take you seriously? Because this argument isn't the way to do it.

Past criminal history of Rittenhouse or his victims is irrelevant. Rittenhouse's motives the night that he shot 3 people are very much relevant.


No, it isn't.

It was Rosenbaum who was justified believing that his life was in danger when Rittenhouse aimed his gun at him. Everything else precipitated from that action of Rittenhouse's:

- Rosenbaum, legitimately in fear for his life, rushed Rittenhouse to get control of the gun pointed at him. Rittenhouse shot him.

- Huber, apparently thinking that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, tried to subdue him with what he had at hand (a skateboard). Rittenhouse shot him, too.

- Grosskreutz, also thinking that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, drew his own gun and pointed it at him. Rittenhouse shot him, too.

... so the one action that started the chain of events was Rittenhouse's decision to threaten the life of an unarmed man.

Rittenhouse was only in reasonable fear for his life to the extent that he had a reasonable expectation that bystanders would be justified in using deadly force against an active shooter.


Seems that there were other shots fired in the general area, but the only shots exchanged between Rittenhouse and his victims were fired by Rittenhouse.

Oh come. Why even post such nonsense if you want a polite reply?

 

[Suave]

BTW - why do you think they were there? The line they gave about "defending property" doesn't hold water, so whatever their reasons, they aren't being open about them.

I mean, if we go by @Suave 's take, they were there to "defend" whatever car inventory was left undamaged from the fire the night before... but that inventory would have almost certainly been insured, so they wouldn't have been protecting the business owner against financial loss. I mean, even any deductible would have been a moot point after the fire the night before.

And the property wasn't irreplaceable artwork or anything; it was used cars. Their only value was in their financial value.

So why do you think they were there?

I can think of a number of hypotheses that fit the facts, none of which reflect well on the vigilantes. Can you think of any plausible hypotheses for why they might have been there where they come off positively?

According to the Car Source owner, his business there was hit in two waves of rioting and arson against his property. There very well may have been at least one million dollars of remaining property value at Car Source when Kyle Rittenhouse and the Kenosha Guard militia were serving to protect that property against a second night of rioting.

"Sunday night’s rioting cost the dealership about $1.5 million in damage, Khindri said, with another $1 million in damage coming during the Monday rioting that hit the business again."

Owner of Destroyed Kenosha Business Blasts Officials: 'They Let It Happen'

Car Source lot, co-owner Anmol Khindri contacted his insurance company to find out what it would cover. The company informed Khindri that his insurance doesn’t cover damage caused by riots, Kenosha News reported.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh come. Why even post such nonsense if you want a polite reply?

I don't want a polite reply; I'm venting at someone who's trying to defend injustice and vigilantism.

The "good guy with a gun" that night was Grosskreutz, not Rittenhouse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the Car Source owner, his business there was hit in two waves of rioting and arson against his property. There very well may have been at least one million dollars of remaining property value at Car Source when Kyle Rittenhouse and the Kenosha Guard militia were serving to protect that property against a second night of rioting.

"Sunday night’s rioting cost the dealership about $1.5 million in damage, Khindri said, with another $1 million in damage coming during the Monday rioting that hit the business again."

Owner of Destroyed Kenosha Business Blasts Officials: 'They Let It Happen'

Car Source lot, co-owner Anmol Khindri contacted his insurance company to find out what it would cover. The company informed Khindri that his insurance doesn’t cover damage caused by riots, Kenosha News reported.

Whew! Lucky it was just a car dealership. They rate just above politicians in trustworthiness. How considerate of the rioters to choose a business that we can sneer at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't want a polite reply; I'm venting at someone who's trying to defend injustice and vigilantism.

The "good guy with a gun" that night was Grosskreutz, not Rittenhouse.

It is not defending when one lays out the facts. And no, Grosskreutz's possession of a gun may have been a felony. He was at least as much in the wrong law wise as Rittenhouse was. He was part of an armed mob chasing a person that had only likely tried to extinguish fires started by members of the mob. Who threatened who first? Who attacked who first? You appear to put all sorts of value on human life when convenient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not defending when one lays out the facts. And no, Grosskreutz's possession of a gun may have been a felony.

What has he been charged with?

He was at least as much in the wrong law wise as Rittenhouse was. He was part of an armed mob chasing a person that had only likely tried to extinguish fires started by members of the mob.

No, he was chasing someone who had just killed two people and was still armed.

Who threatened who first? Who attacked who first?

Sounds like there was some sort of altercation between Rittenhouse and Rosenberg, but the first person to threaten anyone with deadly force was Rittenhouse.

You appear to put all sorts of value on human life when convenient.

You have a problem with putting value on human life?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the Car Source owner, his business there was hit in two waves of rioting and arson against his property. There very well may have been at least one million dollars of remaining property value at Car Source when Kyle Rittenhouse and the Kenosha Guard militia were serving to protect that property against a second night of rioting.

"Sunday night’s rioting cost the dealership about $1.5 million in damage, Khindri said, with another $1 million in damage coming during the Monday rioting that hit the business again."

Owner of Destroyed Kenosha Business Blasts Officials: 'They Let It Happen'

Car Source lot, co-owner Anmol Khindri contacted his insurance company to find out what it would cover. The company informed Khindri that his insurance doesn’t cover damage caused by riots, Kenosha News reported.

That article is dated a week after the incident. Sounds like even the owner thought at the time that insurance would cover the damage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What has he been charged with?

Ironically he has not been charged with anything yet that I can see. Do you have a point?

No, he was chasing someone who had just killed two people and was still armed.

I am sorry, but you do not get to pick up the story in the middle. It is very likely that he was part of the armed mob that was originally chasing Rittenhouse. You don't get to jump into the middle of the story to pretend that he was a hero.

Sounds like there was some sort of altercation between Rittenhouse and Rosenberg, but the first person to threaten anyone with deadly force was Rittenhouse.

Nope. A mob chasing a person, armed or not, is threatening with deadly force. The same logic that applies to Babbitt applies here.

You have a problem with putting value on human life?

No, I do put a value on human life. That includes Rittenhouse's life. He was not the person that began the attacks. An attacked person does have the right to self defense.

 

[Suave]

That article is dated a week after the incident. Sounds like even the owner thought at the time that insurance would cover the damage.

Most insurance policies have a pay out limit cap. Meaning, you are only insured up to a certain dollar amount. Different states have minimum requirements for specific property items. Anything beyond that, you are responsible for. This will mostly depend on how much insurance you paid for. If the cost to demolish a building, or repair structural damage exceeds that amount, the difference may come out of pocket.

Some cities have laws requiring you to clean rubble and debits from your property. Thus, the owner may legally be held liable for those costs not covered by insurance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ironically he has not been charged with anything yet that I can see. Do you have a point?

Just that your judgement as an armchair internet legal expert would carry more weight if there was some sign that people with actual expertise agreed with your opinion.

I am sorry, but you do not get to pick up the story in the middle. It is very likely that he was part of the armed mob that was originally chasing Rittenhouse. You don't get to jump into the middle of the story to pretend that he was a hero.

I have no obligation to shoehorn the facts into some narrative you invented.

Grosskreutz has testified. He made it clear that he was responding to what he thought was an active shooter.

Nope. A mob chasing a person, armed or not, is threatening with deadly force. The same logic that applies to Babbitt applies here.

The only chasing that happened was after Rittenhouse fled the scene after killing Rosenberg.

No, I do put a value on human life. That includes Rittenhouse's life. He was not the person that began the attacks. An attacked person does have the right to self defense.

Self defense that's proportional to the threat and reasonable under the circumstances. Rosenberg was unarmed and only went for Rittenhouse's gun when his own life was threatened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just that your judgement as an armchair internet legal expert would carry more weight if there was some sign that people with actual expertise agreed with your opinion.

Actually it supports my claim that the prosecution here is mainly political.

I have no obligation to shoehorn the facts into some narrative you invented.

Grosskreutz has testified. He made it clear that he was responding to what he thought was an active shooter.

No, he only claimed that at best. You are not being consistent. By that standard Rittenhouse made it clear that this was a case of self defense.

The only chasing that happened was after Rittenhouse fled the scene after killing Rosenberg.

Not true at all.

Self defense that's proportional to the threat and reasonable under the circumstances. Rosenberg was unarmed and only went for Rittenhouse's gun when his own life was threatened.

Again false. Rosenberg was part of a mob that was chasing Rittenhouse and they had him cornered. He may have been the leader of the chase. It appears that he threatened Rittenhouse before anything started.

Where are you getting your claims from?

 

[Wildswanderer]

True and I know very little about U.S. state laws




They're considered native but are the only native not fully protected (to the best of my knowledge). They'll be extinct in the not too distant future because of cross breeding with domestic dogs.

Eastern coyotes are a big problem here. They are not exactly an invasive species, but they were pretty much eradicated at one time in the more settled areas and have come back with a vengeance. You have an animal that is the size of a German shepherd with no predators except man basically, eating people's pets and livestock.
We have sheep and goats so hearing coyotes yipping doesn't make us happy. But they are here to stay. I trapped two so far within a half mile of home this season. When I carry a gun it's usually for animals first, I just don't necessarily take it off when I go to the store, as long as it's well hidden.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Just that your judgement as an armchair internet legal expert would carry more weight if there was some sign that people with actual expertise agreed with your opinion.



I have no obligation to shoehorn the facts into some narrative you invented.

Grosskreutz has testified. He made it clear that he was responding to what he thought was an active shooter.


The only chasing that happened was after Rittenhouse fled the scene after killing Rosenberg.



Self defense that's proportional to the threat and reasonable under the circumstances. Rosenberg was unarmed and only went for Rittenhouse's gun when his own life was threatened.

I don't understand how anyone who has seen the footage could not understand that Kyle acted in self defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand how anyone who has seen the footage could not understand that Kyle acted in self defense.

Usually I find mainstream media accurate. Unfortunately few of them show complete footage. They edit it to suit themselves. Sadly one has to go to right-wing sources in this story.

McGinnis, one of the witnesses is also a videographer for the Daily Call. He was also a prosecution witness. You would not think so from his testimony. He pretty much supported the claims of the defense.