Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[Specter Von Baren]

Well don't thank me, like I said I'm very firmly in camp "kid deserves some jail/prison time" (on top of the fact that whoever gave him that rifle is getting at least 3 felony charges too for his weapon being used in the homicides/assult).


Ok, but I'm gonna be entirely honest here: I don't really care at this point. Especially with that "someone else shot the first victim in the back" nonsense, it really feels like the next revelation is gonna be that the actual shooter wasn't even Rittenhouse, he just felt so bad for the victims that he took the blame for their killings or some shit. Is this a bad take? Probably, bordering on yes, but it's how I feel at this is point, sorry.

I honestly didn't think the background of the three people shot really mattered for this discussion since, to me, the video evidence is pretty conclusive. The only one that is relevant is the guy with the handgun since it was illegal for him to possess it. But so long as other people bring in Rittenhouse's actions before the incident I will bring up that of the other people involved.

The only other reason to bring up the background of the other three is to show just how far partisanship has gone in the country. If Rittenhouse had been black I don't doubt for a second that all those people out there on YouTube and Twitter would have the opposite position on this event. The amount if people I've seen still calling this an issue of white nationalism despite the fact that the three people that got shot were white is shameful. (Look at Rosenbaum, anyone that claims that the media wouldn't have been giddy to call him a skinhead Neo-Nazi and be done with it is kidding themselves)

 

[Mister Mumbler]

So I'm going to follow my own shitty advice and say this here:

Yes, if you are walking down a street and you get jumped by a gang from a dark alley, it would be self defense to defend yourself.

However, what happens if you're walking down the street, and you see a group of people you don't like, maybe they're assholes, who knows (cue that one bit from Life of Brian; "he's making it up as he goes along!"), when one of them sees you and does a condendsending head shake to his friends (you know the one I'm talking about). You flip them off, one of them calls you a name, and that's when you step towards them and lift up your shirt to show them that you are armed with a handgun. Do you think the judge us going to view these two scenarios the same?

Because that is the real question: how provocative of an act is it to not only bring a loaded firearm to a protest, but to carry it around in such a way that all it takes to kill someone is to actually point it at them.

"He was retreating in good fatih", nope, if carrying the gun in such a manner is provocative enough in the first place he should have disarmed himself, and before the "and let someone else kill him with it" crowd chimes in, all he would have had to do was take out the magazine (and take it with him), unload the rifle and leave the rifle and book it. It's easier to run away if your hands aren't holding a rifle anyway.

 

[Houseman]

However, what happens if you're walking down the street, and you see a group of people you don't like, maybe they're assholes, who knows (cue that one bit from Life of Brian; "he's making it up as he goes along!"), when one of them sees you and does a condendsending head shake to his friends (you know the one I'm talking about). You flip them off, one of them calls you a name, and that's when you step towards them and lift up your shirt to show them that you are armed with a handgun. Do you think the judge us going to view these two scenarios the same?

No, I don't. The law has a whole section about how provocation factors in to claims of self-defense.

"He was retreating in good fatih", nope

Yep. It's the law.

Would it have been better if he took the rounds out of the rifle and left it? Sure.
Is that a requirement according to the law? No.

Plus, if he didn't have his gun, perhaps the "false surrender" guy would have shot him. Perhaps the "kick him while he's down" and the skateboard guy would have beat him to death. Or maybe they wouldn't have chased him at all. Nobody knows.

But you can't fault Kyle for not doing the absolutely optimal thing given a stressful situation.

 

[Gergar12]

You can have partisanship, and you can have guns, but you can't have both, or else we are getting into civil war territory.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yet people who have also seen all of the same footage see murder.

I don't believe they actually do. I think the vast majority of people either have not looked into this more than reading a headline (Note, I do not believe anyone here has done this) while others look at this situation and think that "for the greater good" this kid should be sacrificed on the alter of the left wing so that they may prevent a "win" for the right wing.

If Rittenhouse was black or maybe if this wasn't an election year, the entire left wing press would be on his side and digging into every nook and cranny of the pasts of all the other people involved to slant it against them.

Ask yourself why so many people called this a shooting by a white supremacist right from the get go and continue to do so when all three people shot were white? Why would they do that? And this isn't for lack of targets, there were tons of black people out there that night for Rittenhouse to shoot if he wanted to. They think that and say that because they either assume that's what this is based on hearsay or they are afraid that someone shooting rioters in self-defense will encourage other people to shoot rioters without it being self-defense.

 

[Iron]

I think Kyle is Hispanic though

 

[Revnak]

I don't believe they actually do. I think the vast majority of people either have not looked into this more than reading a headline (Note, I do not believe anyone here has done this) while others look at this situation and think that "for the greater good" this kid should be sacrificed on the alter of the left wing so that they may prevent a "win" for the right wing.

If Rittenhouse was black or maybe if this wasn't an election year, the entire left wing press would be on his side and digging into every nook and cranny of the pasts of all the other people involved to slant it against them.

Ask yourself why so many people called this a shooting by a white supremacist right from the get go and continue to do so when all three people shot were white? Why would they do that? And this isn't for lack of targets, there were tons of black people out there that night for Rittenhouse to shoot if he wanted to. They think that and say that because they either assume that's what this is based on hearsay or they are afraid that someone shooting rioters in self-defense will encourage other people to shoot rioters without it being self-defense.

No, no, and no. I’d have the same knee jerk negative reaction (and did have) to any such shooting for the simple reason that more bodies is just going to make all of this horrifyingly dangerous. It’s not self defense to walk around a protest with a gun and wind up killing two people. People were calling him a white supremacist because he appeared to be operating along with the militias there. They also did so because the primary vector for the videos spreading was white supremacists rapidly trying to glorify his acts and spread defenses for them, thus the multiple stills of the “Molotov” and the reverse ordering of the videos by most early reports. This is a culture war issue because right wing culture warriors immediately started rallying to the kid’s defense. You’ve reversed the narrative to feel unbiased.

 

[Houseman]

It’s not self defense to walk around a protest with a gun and wind up killing two people.

You've already refused to give any sort of evidence other than "because I say so", so why do you keep involving yourself in the discussion? Just arguing for the sake of arguing? We've asked you again and again to either put up or shut up, but you refuse to do either.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You’re having so much fun presuming that I’m suffering culture shock at all here given I have been in a riot already and am in no way under some illusions. Watched a guy throw a brick at a store window for Instagram fame. It was a Sprint store so I don’t care, but whatever. If I have a narrative to prop up, it is quite simple, do not bring guns to, or even have a gun at, a protest unless you’re well coordinated with others so nobody winds up fucking dead. This is something I happily apply to “my side” given my stance on the actual fucking subject matter of the thread you keep derailing with terror apologetics (I’m sure you’ll try to make an argument out of disproving that barb but I don’t fucking care).

You do have one to prop up.

That Kyle instigated and was the one who cause things to happen here.

Not the person who tried to grab his gun initially for no apparent reason while yelling "Fuck you"
Or the people who took it upon themselves to attack him when he was on the ground.
Or the guy who tried to sneakily pull his own gun out when he thought Kyle didn't see him as a threat to shoot Kyle when he didn't expect it.

As for any other shock, yeah, I don’t like seeing people shot in the head. Surprising. Maybe someone so detatched from the human suffering of others as yourself may enjoy such spectacles, but I do not. Watching a person die, let alone two people die, isn’t fun. Doing so to appease your sick demand that I prove their deaths weren’t righteous isn’t any more fun.

Or you know I've seen some shit and seen and heard about some really awful suffering (heard some of the more extreme bits rather than seen thank Cthulhu). Also weird how you ASSUME I enjoyed it. I do not enjoy seeing death.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, no, and no. I’d have the same knee jerk negative reaction (and did have) to any such shooting for the simple reason that more bodies is just going to make all of this horrifyingly dangerous. It’s not self defense to walk around a protest with a gun and wind up killing two people. People were calling him a white supremacist because he appeared to be operating along with the militias there. They also did so because the primary vector for the videos spreading was white supremacists rapidly trying to glorify his acts and spread defenses for them, thus the multiple stills of the “Molotov” and the reverse ordering of the videos by most early reports. This is a culture war issue because right wing culture warriors immediately started rallying to the kid’s defense. You’ve reversed the narrative to feel unbiased.

Again

NOT KYLE's GUN
He wasn't walking around, the first shooting was part of the lot Kyle and others were guarding at the request of the owner.

 

[Revnak]

Again

NOT KYLE's GUN
He wasn't walking around, the first shooting was part of the lot Kyle and others were guarding at the request of the owner.

It doesn’t fucking matter that it wasn’t his gun he still shouldn’t have had it.
Edit- I’ll add that I didn’t say it was his because that’s absolutely tangential in any case.

 

[Revnak]

You do have one to prop up.

That Kyle instigated and was the one who cause things to happen here.

Not the person who tried to grab his gun initially for no apparent reason while yelling "Fuck you"
Or the people who took it upon themselves to attack him when he was on the ground.
Or the guy who tried to sneakily pull his own gun out when he thought Kyle didn't see him as a threat to shoot Kyle when he didn't expect it.

Perhaps none of them did the right thing? Have you considered that that’s my stance? Which it is?

Or you know I've seen some shit and seen and heard about some really awful suffering (heard some of the more extreme bits rather than seen thank Cthulhu). Also weird how you ASSUME I enjoyed it. I do not enjoy seeing death.

Then stop demanding everyone else does to satisfy your morbid fascinations.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It doesn’t fucking matter that it wasn’t his gun he still shouldn’t have had it.

What would you suggest? A can of Bear mace?

 

[Revnak]

What would you suggest? A can of Bear mace?

Well I guess.
Edit- the guy protecting a local business where I was just stood at the door. He didn’t have shit.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Perhaps none of them did the right thing? Have you considered that that’s my stance? Which it is?

I've considered it but I don't think the right thing is ever "Lay down and let angry protesters beat you up or take the firearm from you while they yell "Fuck you" even if you've done nothing wrong at that point"

Then stop demanding everyone else does to satisfy your morbid fascinations.

Hard to argue specific when you've not engaged with the evidence.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well I guess.

Well we know how that went in Portland.
Gun beats bear mace.

 

[Revnak]

Well we know how that went in Portland.
Gun beats bear mace.

That guy had a gun too... so it seems the gun didn’t help either???

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That guy had a gun too... so it seems the gun didn’t help either???

yeh Rifle beats pistol

 

[Revnak]

I've considered it but I don't think the right thing is ever "Lay down and let angry protesters beat you up or take the firearm from you while they yell "Fuck you" even if you've done nothing wrong at that point"

You showed up to defy/intimidate them, almost certainly have social media history to back that, are dressed up as and collaborating with a militia that’s threatening them, are brandishing a rifle (who fucking cares that it’s legal, it’s a fucking gun), and have been chummy with the cops they’re protesting against all day. I don’t know if that amounts to “nothing,” though I’ll agree it doesn’t amount to “deserving of being beaten.” I don’t think “touched my gun” deserves “shoot to death” either.

Hard to argue specific when you've not engaged with the evidence.

None of us are arguing with accurate specificity in any case because the necessary information for that isn’t “some videos I gawked at on the internet.” We’re all generalizing in broad strokes and demanding people keep looking at different angles of a murder to decipher the exact events is honestly sadistic. It looks to me like that part can be left to the jury, and that there’s enough leeway to presume either conclusion is correct.

 

[Houseman]

It looks to me like that part can be left to the jury

If so, then why you only bringing up just letting the courts decide now after days of playing internet detective?