Black Lives Matter

[wufan]

I know almost zero about this Rittenhouse deal. The one question I'd like to have answered is this: what could a young white dude at a BLM rally, carrying an AR-15, be looking for besides trouble?

He went there to protect personal property and to grant aid to those injured during the riots. There are CERTAINLY criticisms to be levied against him for this decision, but this was within his rights to make this particular stupid decision.

What do say about a solo woman that wears a miniskirt to a club? She was asking for it?

I'm assuming he's conservative, had been listening to Hannity all afternoon long and finally said to himself, "**** this! I'm not gonna let a bunch of no-good ni***rs burn down my town". Then he picked up his rifle and (hoped) he would find some trouble.

Am I way off here?

Yes. He is/was pro Black Lives Matter. If you are questioning his motive, it would be closer to Bugaloo Bois than conservative.

It was made very clear to me at my CCL class that if you are going to be involved in a self-defense/lethal force situation, there better not be ANY way for the prosecution to link your prior behavior to the criminal actions of the perp. For example: no prior arguments, unfriendly interactions, taunts, threats, etc.

Without knowing anything about anything except what I stated above, it seems Rittenhouse should have been found guilty of a Class B felony. You DON'T go down to a BLM rally with a ****ing rifle unless it's to defend your own business (from the inside).

What class B felony would you charge him with? Remember, he didn’t shoot rioters indiscriminately, just the ones that tried to kill him for being there.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yes. He is/was pro Black Lives Matter. If you are questioning his motive, it would be closer to Bugaloo Bois than conservative.

So he's a BLM supporter yet all the black celebrities want him crucified? I REALLY don't know what's going on with this. This is like 3D chess virtue signaling/white male toxic masculinity.

What class B felony would you charge him with? Remember, he didn’t shoot rioters indiscriminately, just the ones that tried to kill him for being there.

Probably reckless homicide/manslaughter. And this only because he faced his "assaulter" prior in the day and didn't clear the area or call the police immediately (who would have told him to leave the area). He tested the Stand Your Ground laws and came out on the winning side.

What do say about a solo woman that wears a miniskirt to a club? She was asking for it?

They're always "asking for it"...

[wufan]

If that's exactly how it happened, then yes, he was technically within his rights. Definitely poor judgment carrying a rifle. A concealed pistol would attract much less attention. I frown on those who open carry anything. It's threatening behavior to most average folk.

Carrying a concealed pistol at his age would have been a felony, but open carrying a rifle is not.

If there's ANY evidence that he got involved in a heated verbal exchange with anybody prior to the shootings and didn't leave the area immediately, he's going to be found guilty most times. Fear of imminent threat and staying in the area after the threat occurred is a major legal hurdle to overcome.

"cleaning up graffiti was not against the law."

If by "cleaning up graffiti" you mean he was painting over fresh graffiti before the event was even over... that would be extremely unwise, and easily interpreted as aggressive/taunting behavior. It's like shouting over another protester, except you're doing it with a paint brush. The time to "clean up" is AFTER the chaos is over and protestors have dispersed.

I suspect he was passive-aggressively "helping" at the rally and armed to the tits while doing so. A tacit reminder that "he's in charge" and nobody better get in his way. That exact attitude is what the BLM people were/are protesting against. It's a good thing the perps he shot weren't black...

There was no evidence that Kyle was doing anything other than rendering aid prior to the altercation.

He was cleaning up the graffiti during daylight hours, prior to the riots that night. It was after his shift as a life guard and he was doing it with a group of volunteers.

As for his passive-aggressiveness, when the initial altercation occurred, he was running with a fire extinguisher (rifle slung over his shoulder) to put out a fire. At that point the Zaminski couple confronted him and attempted to stop him. He yelled “friendly, friendly, friendly” as he attempted to pass. Mrs Zaminski yelled “get em” and Rosenboom attacked him from behind. He dropped the fire extinguisher and Mr Zaminski fired over Kyle’s head as Roseboom gave chase. The rest is on video.

[wufan]

So he's a BLM supporter yet all the black celebrities want him crucified? I REALLY don't know what's going on with this. This is like 3D chess virtue signaling/white male toxic masculinity.





Probably reckless homicide/manslaughter. And this only because he faced his "assaulter" prior in the day and didn't clear the area or call the police immediately (who would have told him to leave the area). He tested the Stand Your Ground laws and came out on the winning side.




They're always "asking for it"...

It is amazing that he was pro BLM and only shot three white guys. Jump Kick man, who he shot at but missed, was black. Still the celebs are praising pedos.

Even in states that don’t allow you to stand your ground, you are allowed to stand there and take threats. You don’t have to cower away if someone calls you the n word (as Rosenboom did). Then when he was attacked, he fled until cornered. So, even in a state that requires you to flee, he STILL met that criteria.

I’d ask for a refund if I took the same CC class you did.

[ShockerPrez]

Determine the unpopular side. Pull an argument from your posterior. Post on message board.

-- "Fun Through Trolling" 1st ed, chapter 5.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It is amazing that he was pro BLM and only shot three white guys. Jump Kick man, who he shot at but missed, was black. Still the celebs are praising pedos.

Even in states that don’t allow you to stand your ground, you are allowed to stand there and take threats. You don’t have to cower away if someone calls you the n word (as Rosenboom did). Then when he was attacked, he fled until cornered. So, even in a state that requires you to flee, he STILL met that criteria.

I’d ask for a refund if I took the same CC class you did.

Everything about your post was fine until that last sentence. Tsk tsk.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Determine the unpopular side. Pull an argument from your posterior. Post on message board.

-- "Fun Through Trolling" 1st ed, chapter 5.

I'm trolling zero. You're just that intimidated by my presence. And I completely understand.

Back on topic.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Carrying a concealed pistol at his age would have been a felony, but open carrying a rifle is not.




There was no evidence that Kyle was doing anything other than rendering aid prior to the altercation.

He was cleaning up the graffiti during daylight hours, prior to the riots that night. It was after his shift as a life guard and he was doing it with a group of volunteers.

As for his passive-aggressiveness, when the initial altercation occurred, he was running with a fire extinguisher (rifle slung over his shoulder) to put out a fire. At that point the Zaminski couple confronted him and attempted to stop him. He yelled “friendly, friendly, friendly” as he attempted to pass. Mrs Zaminski yelled “get em” and Rosenboom attacked him from behind. He dropped the fire extinguisher and Mr Zaminski fired over Kyle’s head as Roseboom gave chase. The rest is on video.

Running to a "fire" with a fire extinguisher?

Okay, thanks for the additional info. I don't want to get balls deep into the story. I thought it had an easy interpretation of the events as well as intent.

[WuDrWu]

If that's exactly how it happened, then yes, he was technically within his rights. Definitely poor judgment carrying a rifle. A concealed pistol would attract much less attention. I frown on those who open carry anything. It's threatening behavior to most average folk.

If there's ANY evidence that he got involved in a heated verbal exchange with anybody prior to the shootings and didn't leave the area immediately, he's going to be found guilty most times. Fear of imminent threat and staying in the area after the threat occurred is a major legal hurdle to overcome.

"cleaning up graffiti was not against the law."

If by "cleaning up graffiti" you mean he was painting over fresh graffiti before the event was even over... that would be extremely unwise, and easily interpreted as aggressive/taunting behavior. It's like shouting over another protester, except you're doing it with a paint brush. The time to "clean up" is AFTER the chaos is over and protestors have dispersed.

I suspect he was passive-aggressively "helping" at the rally and armed to the tits while doing so. A tacit reminder that "he's in charge" and nobody better get in his way. That exact attitude is what the BLM people were/are protesting against. It's a good thing the perps he shot weren't black...

What is this nonsense?

"If that's exactly how it happened"....IF? There are videos and eye witness accounts, and people watched and judged. You admit you know next to nothing. Why are you even chiming in, when you admit to knowing "next to nothing"? This is the problem for you leftists and media. You state your opinion as an equal counter to what's actually factual, and you double down when you actual know nothing.

You then go full strawman with your opinion of a made up story that there is absolutely no evidence of occurring.

Now it's a bad idea and "extremely unwise" to protect private property from vandals and criminals. We should just let assholes be assholes for as long as they want to be assholes, then when they've tired of being animals and gone home to their welfare and weed, it's ok for the owners to come back and clean up after them. Is there a time people have to wait? Like with swimming after eating? It's something like 30 minutes after a hot dog and an hour and a half for a chili dog and if you have a frito pie dog you're done for the day. What it is for a riot? Are there longer periods of time to wait based on the color of the rioters or what they are protesting? Does the time of day matter? Please post a guide so that we know when we're allowed to go in and clean up after the criminals.

"it's a good thing the perps he shot weren't black..."

Interesting take. I'm guess I'm glad you saw them as "perps" (even though you know next to nothing about the incident) but then I guess based on that, black lives REALLY DO matter, since it's good they weren't shot, and I guess ok whitey was shot?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Even in states that don’t allow you to stand your ground, you are allowed to stand there and take threats. You don’t have to cower away if someone calls you the n word (as Rosenboom did).

The nuance you're missing from my original comment is this: if you are to stand in front of a prosecutor (then jury) and prove to them that you had no other choice but to use deadly force in order to survive (your belief) while you had been interacting with the same threat earlier in the day... you are going to have a tough road to hoe. There is precedent for legal complications in this very scenario, many times.

[WstateU]

The “wood shed” is filled to the brim.

[C0|dB|00ded]

What is this nonsense?

"If that's exactly how it happened"....IF? There are videos and eye witness accounts, and people watched and judged. You admit you know next to nothing. Why are you even chiming in, when you admit to knowing "next to nothing"? This is the problem for you leftists and media. You state your opinion as an equal counter to what's actually factual, and you double down when you actual know nothing.

You then go full strawman with your opinion of a made up story that there is absolutely no evidence of occurring.

Now it's a bad idea and "extremely unwise" to protect private property from vandals and criminals. We should just let assholes be assholes for as long as they want to be assholes, then when they've tired of being animals and gone home to their welfare and weed, it's ok for the owners to come back and clean up after them. Is there a time people have to wait? Like with swimming after eating? It's something like 30 minutes after a hot dog and an hour and a half for a chili dog and if you have a frito pie dog you're done for the day. What it is for a riot? Are there longer periods of time to wait based on the color of the rioters or what they are protesting? Does the time of day matter? Please post a guide so that we know when we're allowed to go in and clean up after the criminals.

"it's a good thing the perps he shot weren't black..."

Interesting take. I'm guess I'm glad you saw them as "perps" (even though you know next to nothing about the incident) but then I guess based on that, black lives REALLY DO matter, since it's good they weren't shot, and I guess ok whitey was shot?

Jesus Christ man! I made it clear I came to the thread for information. I think it's way past your afternoon whisky "snort". Maybe substitute for Xanax today?

I honestly have little interest. Just a light-hearted inquiry.

I really just wanted to understand why black/white NBA players were distressed after a white guy shot another white guy. I found it bizarre.

The Floyd case was much easier for me to understand without too much effort. Comply don't die.

I do have some knowledge though on self-defense shootings - and when discovering he met those he shot earlier in the day, knew he would be in for some legal trouble. This is why there is tension. The kid appeared to be "walking towards danger" to those affected by his bullets... until he wasn't.

Assault and believing your life was in danger must be proven. If those coming at him didn't have a weapon, or weren't considerably larger than his person... there's another challenge. If they were just trying to take his gun away from him and said so clearly... yet another obstacle.

As far as pedophilia is concerned (no idea), I doubt Rittenhouse was in danger there.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I'm out of time - and just in the nick of time - as I see I've stumbled onto a VERY personal topic (that I now nothing about).

[WuDrWu]

The nuance you're missing from my original comment is this: if you are to stand in front of a prosecutor (then jury) and prove to them that you had no other choice but to use deadly force in order to survive (your belief) while you had been interacting with the same threat earlier in the day... you are going to have a tough road to hoe. There is precedent for legal complications in this very scenario, many times.

You've finally made a little sense here. It must feel good.

I think this is the nuance lost on both sides, to an extent. If you're going to use (carry) deadly force, and claim self defense, you better be able to prove it, and in fact you have to be able to prove it, and as you said, that can be difficult.

And I've heard more than once that KR is very fortunate that there were multiple videos proving his case, because without them, I think most of us would have to admit he's probably found guilty (and wrongly so). Not that he IS guilty, but in today's world, that jury is likely finding him so.

And hopefully that lesson isn't lost on either side of the ideological discussion. If you're going to do something while armed to the teeth, you might want to wear a body cam.

[C0|dB|00ded]

On second thought... this much emotion about what seems like it should be a bizarre event to all, indicates to me that there is an unhealthy amount of bias that needs to be unpacked for the emotional health of everyone here (particularly Doc).

I typed the following in Google: "what did Rittenhouse do wrong"

I got the following:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/ky...day/index.html

Kyle Rittenhouse testified Wednesday that he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot a man who had thrown a plastic bag at him and chased him last year in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in what is likely to be the pivotal testimony of his homicide trial.

"I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself," he testified.

But in cross-examination, Rittenhouse said that he knew the man, Joseph Rosenbaum, was unarmed when he ran at the teenager. Rittenhouse said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding that he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous.

"He was chasing me, I was alone, he threatened to kill me earlier that night. I didn't want to have to shoot him," Rittenhouse testified. "I pointed it at him because he kept running at me and I didn't want him to chase me.

"He said he feared Rosenbaum, who did not touch his body at all that night, would take his gun and kill people.

Problematic.

"I went down there to provide first aid," he said. He said he did not go there looking for trouble.

Rittenhouse told jurors that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him twice that night. In one instance, Rosenbaum screamed, "if I catch any of you f**kers alone, I'll f**king kill you," according to Rittenhouse.

At one point in the night, he became separated from the other armed people in his group. He walked toward a parking lot and said Rosenbaum, hiding behind a vehicle, "ambushed me." Rosenbaum began running at him and cornered him, he said.

In court, as he tried to explain what happened next, Rittenhouse became choked up and broke into tears, leading the judge to call a short break. Rittenhouse resumed his testimony shortly afterward.

Rittenhouse testified that he heard another man, Joshua Ziminski, tell Rosenbaum to "get him and kill him." Rosenbaum started to chase the teenager in a parking lot and threw a plastic bag at him, but Rittenhouse said he believed at the time that the thrown object was a chain.

Rittenhouse then heard a gunshot behind him, he said. Police detectives testified earlier in the trial that Ziminski fired that initial shot in the air, and Ziminski has separately pleaded not guilty to three charges related to that night.

Seconds after that gunshot, Rittenhouse turned and saw Rosenbaum, 36, coming at him with his arms out front, he said. "I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun," Rittenhouse testified. He then shot Rosenbaum four times, killing him.

Rittenhouse then tried to run down the street to where police were situated to turn himself in, he testified, but a "mob was chasing me." While running, he became lightheaded and fell to the ground, he said.

An unknown person jumped at him trying to kick him, and Rittenhouse fired at the person twice. "I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire."

Anthony Huber, 26, then came at him, struck him with a skateboard, and grabbed his gun, he testified. Rittenhouse shot him once in the chest, killing him.

Finally, he saw Gaige Grosskreutz lunge at him and point a pistol at his head, so Rittenhouse shot him, he testified. Grosskreutz was wounded.

Compelling.