🇳🇱
Kyle Rittennhouse is...
PS I want to hear what you think, not what you think the jury will decide.
#KyleRittennhouse #KyleRittenhouse
@Tlalocelotl I find that odd. To me he is so very obviously **innocent** without any evidence of any degree to suggest otherwise that I'm rather surprised even a single person thinks he is guilty.... yet here we are.
@freemo he went to another state just to commit a killing and found a poor excuse. He may walk, but so did George Zimmerman. 🤷 It's America, no one is surprised.
@Tlalocelotl Not true.. he went to another state to help protect people and provide first aid. which he demonstrated by the fact that until he was assaulted by a mob he administered first aid to several people (including other protestors) and engaged in cleaning up graffitti.
So he went to another state to try to help people, provide aide, and provide protection. Which he did. He only killed someone who was trying to assault/kill him first and even went out of his way to avoid shooting back except as a last resort effort once he was cornered. Video tape clearly shows him making every effort to first run and scream "friendly friendly friendly" as the person chasing him were trying to knock him out by throwing things at him. He finally only shoots when the guy finally gets within arms reach to assault him physically.
How anyone can see the video and not see it as a very clear case of self defense and shooting only as a last resort is absolutely beyond me.
@freemo you can tell yourself that story if you want.
@Tlalocelotl Literally everything i said was clearly caught on video. Did you even watch the evidence, what part of what i said wasnt clearly visible on the video to you?
@freemo dude, have fun with your beliefs.
@Tlalocelotl ahh, so what you mean is all of it was clearly visible and now that you are proven wrong and called out for not watching it you are going to just make a snarky remark and bounce.
Gotcha, see ya. I will have fun you do the same.
@freemo you're just another white douche making excuses for racially motivated murder. A Conservative would'nt be a Conservative if they were not masturbating over black corpses 🤷
@Tlalocelotl I'm a native american ya racist twat
Funny how all of my arguments were "hey this is what literally happened in the video that is obviously true"... your whole argument is "hey native american dude who has never voted conservative in your life, you're white and conservative so you're wrong"
You are making a fool of yourself, just move along before you dig yourself in any deeper.
Wow the retard runs deep doesn't it.
@freemo @Tlalocelotl Goddamn Communists trying to take our guns.
LMFAO... In the recent protests worldwide I witnessed, no ANY first aid provider on the protester side took a semi-automatic rifle to provide first aid.
And... Let's imagine another situation for a better understanding about the situation... If I/you confronted anyone with a super friendly big smile, dressing like a super kind boy in my neighborhood, and a huge rifle in hand showed up near my daughter's daycare, I would grab anything, even a regular key or a pebble, to get prepared to kill that piece of shit to keep my baby safe. That is why that Rittenhouse was being bitten by the skateboarder or the others. Self-defence? It is him the threat at the very first beginning.
Again, Rittenhouse is prepared to KILL. He shot people because he had been expecting the chance and would never let it go.
@zteng
You call them protesters.... I find that funny... peaceful protestors don't bash in the heads of old men trying to put out a fire at his business. Protestors don't stomp on the faces of black business owners.
Protesters generally just protest. Walk the streets and chant. They resist peacefully. But maybe that word has changed recently. I can never keep up with the evolution of the English language when politics get involved.
@herag Then you should learn more to keep up.
Using unverified individual cases to stigmatize a general concept/term w/o a clear definition is an outdated strategy.
At last, the most common mistake often being made in discussion of this kind topic is criticizing the violence by the oppressed while ignoring the violence by the oppressor, aka system/state/gov/popo/.... which is always way much more horrific.
@zteng
Unverified... okay. So police reports and videos don't count... now I am very confused by what you mean by unverified. Also just the simple fact that there are hundreds of videos demonstrating gunshots throughout the city over the course of the 3 nights of fire and Molotov cocktails. Video where I watched these 'protestors' smashing in the head of an elderly black man. It was horrifying.
I think my confusion has more to do with your - 1/2
perspective on this whole thing. Looters, murderers, rioters, insurrectionists, and arsonists.. those are the only truthful ways to describe what the masses were doing that night and the surrounding nights.
Why not burn down city Hall? Why not attack the officers? Why not raise the police Dept to the ground? I can get behind that. But this riot was a crime of opportunity against the citizens of Kenosha. Not against the powers that be. @zteng - 2/2
George Zimmerman was also innocent, and for the exact same reason.
If you go for someone else's gun your life is forfeit. Darwinism at work.
Go back to facebook and Twitter with this brain dead take.
@freemo for me I think it’s kinda sus he just went into the chaos when it wasn’t even in his city. I am not really sure what happened but if there were no direct threat to him then yeah he is guilty. Again I want to précise I am really uninformed on this thing. But yeah, don’t go play the though guys or the cops and go in a dangerous place should be a common sense rule. You’re not equipped nor formed to deal with it (cops should be formed more, but that’s another story), this isn’t cod
@louisrcouture Some would say its suspect that he walked into a dangerous area with the intent of providing first aide and protecting people... I say its what redeems him.
As for a direct threat to him. He didnt shoot at first. A mob started to chase him screaming things about killing him and beating him up, he ran and didnt shoot back instead screaming "friendly friendly friendly" as objects were thrown at him by people chasing him. At every point he only shoots once he has been cornered and is within arms reach of physical assault. Even then one shot and ran, he didnt just start shooting a crowd or anything. At one point a gun was even held to his face showing the crowd was also at least partly armed.
Its a very clear case of self-defense IMO.
@freemo do we have access to the tape?
@louisrcouture Sure do. Earlier in my feed (yesterday) I posted a link to all the video evidence compiled into a single 11 minute video including multiple angles, one sec ill get it.
@louisrcouture it helps to also hear the testimony to fill in the details mind you. But I think the bulk of it is clear enough on the video.
@freemo when you he isn’t guilty of the second killing, however he definitely is guilty of the first one. He is the one who came into the scene, with his gun to confront the protesters. It doesn’t matter the protester tried to break a car, you do not go and confront people with your gun. He was also given a clear warning not to go into the scene, but he went on anyway. That is enough for me to believe he is guilty. Self defense require you not to be the first offender.
@louisrcouture Wait, so your saying if you legally and rightfully have a gun.. it is shouldered and your hand isnt even touching it, and you happen to approach someone to politely talk to them, then they have a right to kill you and you have no right to shoot back....
Cut me a break, thats reaching.
@freemo he went on and shot him when he was still far away.
Maybe in America you can just go around with a gun and that’s not threatning but you didn’t ask whether we thought he would be convicted or but is he org is he not guilty. You asked for my opinion now you get it.
For me, if you come near me, yes you are threatening, especially if you already shot a few seconds ago. And Canada is pretty lax on guns as compared to other non-US places
@louisrcouture Where do you see him shooting someone far away? Three people were shot.. 1) was the first guy who was chasing him, threw stuff at him, and shot him when he got in arms reach and tried assaulting him. 2) was when he was chased by a mob, fell to the ground and multiple people came within arms reach and started assaulting him, he shot that due... #1 and #2 died. 3) was the guy he shot ONLY after he aimed a pistol at him. Prior to that the man approach him with arms raised and he explicitly did not shoot him. But once the person aimed a gun at him he shot.
#3 was admitted to be the case by the person shot, he was the only one of the 3 who lived.
So where do you see him shooting anyone at a distance other than the one person who aimed a gun at him (and in that case he shot non-lethally).
@louisrcouture there seem to be a few videos on that link. Which one do you wnat me to watch and at what time-point should i pay attention for whatever relevant detail you are trying to share?
@freemo it’s the middle one
@louisrcouture I think i am clearly missing whatever your trying to highlight. The middle one is simply him interacting with police who praised him for being there and giving him some water. It doesnt even have any violence in it or protesters.
@freemo the police tells him to stay away, that he is a civilian etc, he’s trying to confront them then we hear a gunshot
@louisrcouture They arent telling him to disperse, you can clearly hear the difference between the cop in the distance (addressing a crowd out of camera) telling them to disperse, and the cops that address him which are much clearer, louder and closer. When they are addressing him the cop says "We appreciate you guys, we really do". In fact the argument in court is that the police actually deputized him by explicitly condoning them. They were **not** telling them to disperse.
Likewise the gunshot you heard was in the distance.
You can read more about it at the link below here is a quote:
"Police in Wisconsin "deputized" armed vigilantes during protests against police violence last year, including Kyle Rittenhouse..."
and later int he article (naming a victim from the shooting by name):
In the suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, who was shot in his right arm by Rittenhouse, alleges that Kenosha officials enabled a "band of white nationalist vigilantes" during a protest in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.
@freemo
Speaks for itself
People who arrested dont say they pointed their gun at people sarcastically
In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, "Yeah I did."
In court, he testified that he had not actually pointed his weapon at the man and said his admission on video was "sarcasm."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html
@louisrcouture clicked the link, I dont see the video you are talking about. Where is the video?
Was the person whom he supposidly pointed the gun at one of the people shot or is he unrelated to the case at all?
@louisrcouture For that matter was the car he was standing on his own property? Destruction of property (such as standing on someones car with the intent to damage it) is a perfectly acceptable reason to aim a gun at someone anyway. If you are actively destroying someones property you foreit your rights, you get a gun pointed at you and if you dont stop you might even get shot... Moral of the story, dont destroy property that isnt yours intentionally, if you do expect it to be defended.
@freemo and I feel like this is where we disagree.
Yes destroying someone property is wrong, but it’s not a reason to kill someone’s.
It should have been the role of the court to prosecute the guy who destroyed cars. This is more like an extrajudicial killing.
@louisrcouture I think that if someone is destroying property they should get a warning (and was) and if they dont comply shooting is fine.
Again though, was the person he aimed the gun at actually one of the people he shot or was involved int he incident? At worse even if i take your interpretation it was just some unrelated dude he interacted with earlier in the night and is unrelated to the events that unfolded anyway.
The reason i am perfectly ok with someone who is intentionally causing property damage, after being warned, being shot is because in the end the vast majority of criminals get away. I see no reason a victim should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in damage simply to protect the life of someone engaging in illegal activity. Particularly when such people will almost always get away, so relying on cops or courts means you will almost certainly never see justice.
Moreover even if the courts do handle it often times the people are too poor to pay the cost of the damage they do so the owner is still left with tens of thousands of dollars out of his pocket. That said one would expect if you do shoot such a person that you arent aiming to kill.
All this is moot though because, again, you are talking about a person that never was actually shot by kyle nor had any involvement with the incident anyway.
@freemo wait, then who and how were killed
@louisrcouture in the video i linked you you can see all the people who were shot and killed.. first person was the guy chasing him and throwing stuff at him, who he shot only once he got within arms reach. then a large mob formed that followed him as he fled (at the advice of 911). Second person killed you can see when he falls to the ground fleeing and the mob starts to swat at him as he is ont he floor, he then shoots again killing the second person who was assaulting him. finally around that same time you can see a person run up on him with a handgun whom he then shoots and does not kill but has a bleeding arm.
2 deaths one injured is everyone.
@freemo @louisrcouture I think it's perfectly fine to destroy your own property. If you see someone destroying an object that doesn't belong to you, how can you be certain enough that the destroyer doesn't own the object?
Sure. The liability is with the person defending it. If you shoot someone destroying their own property then expect to go to jail for shooting an innocent person. If you, however shoot (or threaten to shoot) someone who is destroying someone elses property, and that is true, you are good.
@freemo @louisrcouture That interpretation makes injuring-someone-without-a-valid-justification effectively a strict liability crime. This is something that's usually strongly avoided in definitions of any serious crimes (with some infamous exceptions, like felony murder in USA). Even in (some) countries where the self defense justification requires the original attack to be real (and not just the defender to reasonably believe it is real) there is a different "mistaken belief" justification (if you perform an act that is normally a crime, you believe it's justified due to some other legal justification, and you are wrong, your act is not a crime). I know that this is the case in Polish criminal law.
Do you know if mistaken self defense is a valid justification in other jurisdictions?
The point im making is, you are right, if you shoot someone for destroying property you better be certain it isnt his property or else you will face jail time.
It doesnt, however, meanyou can never shoot anyone for destroying property even when you know for a fact it isnt his.
@freemo @louisrcouture Many jurisdictions go to great lengths to not have any serious strict liability crimes, because in general they create situations where a reasonably person who knows the law might commit a crime without being aware that they're committing a crime. I believe that this is why mistaken self defense is (at least in some places) also a valid justification. You are proposing an expanded (compared to e.g. the one from Poland) notion of self defense that is OTOH narrower on the intent side (mistaken belief is not enough to invoke the justification). I don't really see why _in this particular situation_ strict liability-like semantics are bad, but I do buy that they should be used as rarely as possible. Thus I wonder if any jurisdiction you know of doesn't excuse mistaken self defense.
@freemo very, very, VERY guilty.