5 ms·

Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are

Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.

hn8788 5y ago
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Very odd how you think a voice that may or may not have been Kyle's saying he wanted to shoot shoplifters is "very relevant" but the criminal conviction for Rosenbaum raping a child or his history of violent behavior is irrelevant.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in this thread. Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment). But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence. You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community. You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    > Like I said, I haven’t followed this You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place? > Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep. > one with a huge weapon Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      Ah, I see where you're confused. I'm not weighing in about the case. This particular thread is about the neutrality of a reporter's initial story: > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting). > And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    "The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it." It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me. That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do end up going through court records, you will find defense quoting one of the 'victims' saying some of those stupid things. There are no good guys here. BUT. There is a clear case of self-defense. And that is all that matters. If I can't defend myself from a mob going at me, something is wrong with current society.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      Thanks. Yeah, I hear you. For the sake of the court case (which I wasn't trying to argue about it), the particular events that lead up to it are what matters. I have a lot of trouble accepting why he was there in the first place, though. I'm not saying that _has_ to impact the case (unless there can be a clear connection between expressing a desire to shoot shoplifters and his actions of the night, which - from a 10k ft view - there is), but just... showing up there with a rifle is sending a loud message, and shit is going to get ugly. Seems like he's very lucky to be alive. I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  I don't think the convicted child rapist thing is that important. The defendant would not have known this information and it would not have factored into his decision to fire his weapon. The other things you mentioned feel more important.
dontcare007 5y ago
But you get some details wrong, and elide some details that are important, just as the media does.
ALittleLight 5y ago
I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select one or two details of the case that seem compelling to you and ignore the rest. It seems strange to base an opinion on what happened on what the defendant said before the event rather than the video and testimony of the event itself. My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  I hear you. Just to clarify, I wasn't forming an opinion on what happened, nor did I state an opinion on what happened. Those two selected details were basically all I absorbed. What's important to me is "why was this person there in the first place" (and I feel like I got the gist!). Not "what happened after this person showed up and how would I defend/prosecute this case if I pretended I was a lawyer." I only have so much bandwidth in my life. Sad event all around.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    You absolutely did form an opinion. You wrote "'guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.' Nuff said." I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.
jpindar 5y ago
But your details are false. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha and lived only a few miles away. The rifle is not large one in any way, neither in overall size nor in caliber. It doesn't bother you that your opinion is based on falsehoods?
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  It bothers me a little that you think you just corrected me. This is an honest question: do you not understand what "opinion" means? For example, do you understand that I can say, "large gun" and that it doesn't mean the same thing you think when you say, "large gun"? When you say, "the rifle is not large," I'm still correct when I say, "yes it is." We're both stating our opinions! I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation? Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think. Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.

hn8788 5y ago

It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.

ryantgtg 5y ago
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
- katbyte 5y ago
  Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Very odd how you think a voice that may or may not have been Kyle's saying he wanted to shoot shoplifters is "very relevant" but the criminal conviction for Rosenbaum raping a child or his history of violent behavior is irrelevant.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in this thread. Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment). But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence. You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community. You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.
- cbozeman 5y ago
  > Like I said, I haven’t followed this You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place? > Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep. > one with a huge weapon Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Ah, I see where you're confused. I'm not weighing in about the case. This particular thread is about the neutrality of a reporter's initial story: > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting). > And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  "The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it." It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me. That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do end up going through court records, you will find defense quoting one of the 'victims' saying some of those stupid things. There are no good guys here. BUT. There is a clear case of self-defense. And that is all that matters. If I can't defend myself from a mob going at me, something is wrong with current society.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Thanks. Yeah, I hear you. For the sake of the court case (which I wasn't trying to argue about it), the particular events that lead up to it are what matters. I have a lot of trouble accepting why he was there in the first place, though. I'm not saying that _has_ to impact the case (unless there can be a clear connection between expressing a desire to shoot shoplifters and his actions of the night, which - from a 10k ft view - there is), but just... showing up there with a rifle is sending a loud message, and shit is going to get ugly. Seems like he's very lucky to be alive. I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.
confidantlake 5y ago
I don't think the convicted child rapist thing is that important. The defendant would not have known this information and it would not have factored into his decision to fire his weapon. The other things you mentioned feel more important.

dontcare007 5y ago

But you get some details wrong, and elide some details that are important, just as the media does.

ALittleLight 5y ago

I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select one or two details of the case that seem compelling to you and ignore the rest. It seems strange to base an opinion on what happened on what the defendant said before the event rather than the video and testimony of the event itself. My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.

ryantgtg 5y ago
I hear you. Just to clarify, I wasn't forming an opinion on what happened, nor did I state an opinion on what happened. Those two selected details were basically all I absorbed. What's important to me is "why was this person there in the first place" (and I feel like I got the gist!). Not "what happened after this person showed up and how would I defend/prosecute this case if I pretended I was a lawyer." I only have so much bandwidth in my life. Sad event all around.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  You absolutely did form an opinion. You wrote "'guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.' Nuff said." I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.

jpindar 5y ago

But your details are false. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha and lived only a few miles away. The rifle is not large one in any way, neither in overall size nor in caliber. It doesn't bother you that your opinion is based on falsehoods?

ryantgtg 5y ago
It bothers me a little that you think you just corrected me. This is an honest question: do you not understand what "opinion" means? For example, do you understand that I can say, "large gun" and that it doesn't mean the same thing you think when you say, "large gun"? When you say, "the rifle is not large," I'm still correct when I say, "yes it is." We're both stating our opinions! I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation? Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think. Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.