4 ms·

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 cha

by 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.
      - 5y ago
- 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.

by hn8788 5y ago

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.
    - 5y ago
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.