🇳🇱
Kyle Rittennhouse is...
PS I want to hear what you think, not what you think the jury will decide.
#KyleRittennhouse #KyleRittenhouse
@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 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.
@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 @louisrcouture
Why did you move to the Netherlands if these are your views? No gun ownership here, absolutely no open carry. Had this happened in the Netherlands he would be incredibly guilty, no question.
And if you really want to kill someone that damages your car, please move back to the USA...
@freemo @louisrcouture
This message came off more confrontational then I'd intended it, sorry about that. To be clear, I absolutely disagree with your views on property damage warranting bodily harm or death.
I'm just wondering how that fits in the context of the almost gun free country you are in now.
@kingannoy
Apology accepted.
The best answer i can give you is that I dont need to agree with everything about a country to love it. There are many things i feel the netherlands does wrong, and lack of sane gun rights is a huge one. That said there are many other things about the netherlands I love and those things are enough for me to accept the short comings.
@freemo @louisrcouture
I think the examples you mention are less likely to harm someone in the Netherlands. Intentional property damage is less likely in a more fair society for example. Making it less necessary to arm yourself with a deadly weapon.
In light of that, don't you think that focussing on those improvements, that improve life for everyone, is the better course for a society? Instead of arming everyone?
@kingannoy
Im not sure i would need to pick one or the other. I can promote a more fair society and still promote guns. I dont see a huge need to pick one right over another.
I can say that a society where guns need to be used less to defend yourself is a good goal to have.
@louisrcouture
@freemo @kingannoy in all respects. Couldn’t the things that make Netherlands a better place than the USA, (less violence, in particular), be because of the current policies they implement, such as gun control https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8?op=1
They **could** be yes.. and at least **some** of their policies likely contribute to that.
But while it **could** be due to their policy on guns I strongly do not beleive it **is**. In fact I think there are a few policies having nothing to do with guns that leads to this and some things that arent policy related at all.
Not policy: The culture of morality that is passed down/taught from generation to generations. Also a lack of taboo around seeking therapy and other mental health
Policy:
1) healthcare that gives them access to therapy (as broken as it is its still better than the USA in this regard)
2) The fact that if you call police they probably wont shoot you, your dog, and your kids for your trouble
3) Cheaper access to education, which in turn leads to better access to jobs above the poverty line
@freemo @louisrcouture
The American police being too trigger happy is surely not helped by lax gun regulations, right? It's not the only reason they are as fucked up as they are, but it can't help.
We will sadly always have some violent confrontations in society. Some policies can decrease the amount of confrontations, like decreasing inequality, improving healthcare, welfare.
Fewer guns lowers the ceiling on the violent outcome of confrontations.
I think its fair to say some portion of police shooting unarmed victims is simply a mistake that might not have happened if guns were less common. I cant really say wht perportion it is but I suspect that is a very small part of the problem for several reasons.
1) Cops overwhelmingly support the 2A and generally claim they want to see citiizens armed. If they were scared for their life I doubt they would be saying this.
2) The overwhelming perportion of people who shoot cops are criminals who got their guns illegally, and as such would not have been prevented by gun laws (especially considering guns are easily manufactured in private workshops)
3) I doubt all those dogs they are shooting were because they thought they were hiding a gun
4) the overwhelming number of cops I have met who have demonstrated they are bad people (and the statistics such as them having huge perportions of spouse abuse) suggests to me the problem isnt the guns, its the cops.
