5 ms·

Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod him

Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.

RC_ITR 5y ago
Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?
- 1123581321 5y ago
  The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Sure, but we take teenagers (who just shot someone and are RUNNING away) at their word now? And if you don't, you're justified in being shot while pursuing him?
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      You're justified in being shot if you try to physically attack them by repeatedly hitting them in the head and then trying to grab their gun, yes.
      - RC_ITR 5y ago
        As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle) What were they supposed to do, let him flee?
        mannerheim 5y ago
        Ah yes, the only two options here were to let Rittenhouse flee and to repeatedly bash in his head.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      I only wanted to let you know what the argument was.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Rittenhouse had shot one person, who had chased him and lunged for his gun, at the time the mob chased after him. He was not aiming his gun at anybody else nor did he fire his gun at anybody else until he was being attacked. Grosskreutz had chased after him after he had shot Rosenbaum, but Grosskreutz did not witness the shooting himself - none of Rittenhouse's pursuers had. He got close enough to Rittenhouse to ask Rittenhouse where he was running. Rittenhouse doesn't turn around and shoot Grosskreutz, but instead tells Grosskreutz he's going to the police, to which Grosskreutz yells 'stop him'.[0] The fact is, Rittenhouse's pursuers didn't think he was an 'active shooter', they saw that he was running away, and didn't want to let him get away, and were trying to take justice into their own hands. And in fact, if Grosskreutz actually had thought that Rittenhouse were an 'active shooter', why didn't he shoot him right then? [0]: https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872 https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Did you watch the video? In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone? And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession. [0]Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!” As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away. Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenos...
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone? Didn't say that, I said the pursuers were not a witness to the shooting themselves. That is, they didn't see it happen for themselves. For example, Grosskreutz's story: > Gaige Grosskreutz testified that he was filming the protest as a legal observer for the American Civil Liberties Union on a Facebook livestream. Shortly before midnight Grosskreutz said he heard gunshots to the south and observed Rittenhouse running in his direction[86] on Sheridan Road.[87] Grosskreutz said he ran alongside Rittenhouse and asked "Hey, what are you doing. You shot somebody?"[86] > And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession. It wasn't a murder, and it as for 'close succession', that's subjective; Rittenhouse had ran for two blocks after he shot Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz had already been pursuing Rittenhouse (that's when he recorded the video in the tweet). Grosskreutz would have witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Huber, but he would have also seen Huber slam a skateboard into Rittenhouse's head and attempt to grab his rifle before Rittenhouse had shot Huber since Grosskreutz had been pursuing Rittenhouse prior to this. So 1) Grosskreutz didn't witness Rosenbaum's shooting, 2) Grosskreutz would have witnessed Huber attacking Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot Huber. I.e., he would have known nothing about the first shooting, and the second shooting he would have witnessed the entire self-defence case as it happened, giving zero reasonable indication that Rittenhouse was an 'active shooter'.
- HNTA_1 5y ago
  >Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. No he didn't. He had just defended himself against two assailants, while trying to flee. He was never, at any point in time, an "active shooter". An "active shooter" is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0] He had a pattern of selection. Kyle shot and neutralized those who were trying to kill him (or cause grievious bodily harm). That is, by definition, self-defense, not an "active shooter" event. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.p... QED.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. He shoots bully dead and starts running. He then shoots two people tackling him. Is he not an active shooter? Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that, even if you disagree politically with his victims?
    - HNTA_1 5y ago
      >Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. > School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. You mean a victim is bullied almost to death and feared for his life. So he... >shoots bully dead and starts running. Self-defends himself against a violent threat and flees the site of where he was almost bullied to death. > He then shoots two people tackling him. He then shoots two more bullies who also try to tackle and beat him to death. All of these instances are self-defense. >Is he not an active shooter? According to the definition used by the federal government, absolutely not. You don't get to magically redefine terms because the new definition is better for your narrative. >Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? Projection much? Why are you doing such self-delusion to lionize this kid? By "mental gymnastics" you mean "what a jury decided was the truth after hours of testimony, footage, and deliberations." Facts, evidence, testimony, etc. that are not good for your narrative are not "mental gymnastics". > You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not Which is exactly what happened in court. >not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. There's that delusion again. It's only "reality" if you want to replace what actually happened with some narrative safe delusion. He was within the confines of the law when he legally defended himself. That is the complete opposite of "extrajudicial". Here you are again, attempting to redefine terms and words to delusionally fit a narrative. >Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that Does upholding and defending the law and a verdict decided by a jury make me feel weird? No. If it makes you feel weird, maybe it's because the facts, law, and reality are causing you mental strife. Seek help. >even if you disagree politically with his victims? What his assailants' political beliefs are is immaterial.

RC_ITR 5y ago

Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?

1123581321 5y ago
The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Sure, but we take teenagers (who just shot someone and are RUNNING away) at their word now? And if you don't, you're justified in being shot while pursuing him?
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    You're justified in being shot if you try to physically attack them by repeatedly hitting them in the head and then trying to grab their gun, yes.
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle) What were they supposed to do, let him flee?
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        Ah yes, the only two options here were to let Rittenhouse flee and to repeatedly bash in his head.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    I only wanted to let you know what the argument was.
mannerheim 5y ago
Rittenhouse had shot one person, who had chased him and lunged for his gun, at the time the mob chased after him. He was not aiming his gun at anybody else nor did he fire his gun at anybody else until he was being attacked. Grosskreutz had chased after him after he had shot Rosenbaum, but Grosskreutz did not witness the shooting himself - none of Rittenhouse's pursuers had. He got close enough to Rittenhouse to ask Rittenhouse where he was running. Rittenhouse doesn't turn around and shoot Grosskreutz, but instead tells Grosskreutz he's going to the police, to which Grosskreutz yells 'stop him'.[0] The fact is, Rittenhouse's pursuers didn't think he was an 'active shooter', they saw that he was running away, and didn't want to let him get away, and were trying to take justice into their own hands. And in fact, if Grosskreutz actually had thought that Rittenhouse were an 'active shooter', why didn't he shoot him right then? [0]: https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872 https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Did you watch the video? In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone? And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession. [0]Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!” As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away. Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenos...
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > In what world did none of his pursuers not know he had just killed someone? Didn't say that, I said the pursuers were not a witness to the shooting themselves. That is, they didn't see it happen for themselves. For example, Grosskreutz's story: > Gaige Grosskreutz testified that he was filming the protest as a legal observer for the American Civil Liberties Union on a Facebook livestream. Shortly before midnight Grosskreutz said he heard gunshots to the south and observed Rittenhouse running in his direction[86] on Sheridan Road.[87] Grosskreutz said he ran alongside Rittenhouse and asked "Hey, what are you doing. You shot somebody?"[86] > And to be a pedant, he was only drawn on after the second murder, even though they were in close succession. It wasn't a murder, and it as for 'close succession', that's subjective; Rittenhouse had ran for two blocks after he shot Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz had already been pursuing Rittenhouse (that's when he recorded the video in the tweet). Grosskreutz would have witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Huber, but he would have also seen Huber slam a skateboard into Rittenhouse's head and attempt to grab his rifle before Rittenhouse had shot Huber since Grosskreutz had been pursuing Rittenhouse prior to this. So 1) Grosskreutz didn't witness Rosenbaum's shooting, 2) Grosskreutz would have witnessed Huber attacking Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot Huber. I.e., he would have known nothing about the first shooting, and the second shooting he would have witnessed the entire self-defence case as it happened, giving zero reasonable indication that Rittenhouse was an 'active shooter'.
HNTA_1 5y ago
>Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. No he didn't. He had just defended himself against two assailants, while trying to flee. He was never, at any point in time, an "active shooter". An "active shooter" is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0] He had a pattern of selection. Kyle shot and neutralized those who were trying to kill him (or cause grievious bodily harm). That is, by definition, self-defense, not an "active shooter" event. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.p... QED.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. He shoots bully dead and starts running. He then shoots two people tackling him. Is he not an active shooter? Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that, even if you disagree politically with his victims?
  - HNTA_1 5y ago
    >Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. > School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. You mean a victim is bullied almost to death and feared for his life. So he... >shoots bully dead and starts running. Self-defends himself against a violent threat and flees the site of where he was almost bullied to death. > He then shoots two people tackling him. He then shoots two more bullies who also try to tackle and beat him to death. All of these instances are self-defense. >Is he not an active shooter? According to the definition used by the federal government, absolutely not. You don't get to magically redefine terms because the new definition is better for your narrative. >Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? Projection much? Why are you doing such self-delusion to lionize this kid? By "mental gymnastics" you mean "what a jury decided was the truth after hours of testimony, footage, and deliberations." Facts, evidence, testimony, etc. that are not good for your narrative are not "mental gymnastics". > You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not Which is exactly what happened in court. >not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. There's that delusion again. It's only "reality" if you want to replace what actually happened with some narrative safe delusion. He was within the confines of the law when he legally defended himself. That is the complete opposite of "extrajudicial". Here you are again, attempting to redefine terms and words to delusionally fit a narrative. >Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that Does upholding and defending the law and a verdict decided by a jury make me feel weird? No. If it makes you feel weird, maybe it's because the facts, law, and reality are causing you mental strife. Seek help. >even if you disagree politically with his victims? What his assailants' political beliefs are is immaterial.