7 ms·

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fire

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state. But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards. The flow of information today is too fast to wait for definitive, legal judgements on every case, and balancing free speech, opinion, and commentary against spreading false news and inciting hatred is an incredibly challenging task. In the aftermath of the shooting, it seems Facebook implemented their 'mass shooting' playbook, which is, from my perspective, completely reasonable. Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Once it became clear that the killings were not illegal, then Facebook removed these restrictions. I'm not exactly an ardent defender of Facebook's policies, but in this case, especially given that none of the facts are in contention, I think Facebook did the right thing.

throwntoday 5y ago
Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be. I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  One was "unarmed" with a blunt weapon and the other threatened to kill Kyle prior to his attempt to steal his gun. Had Kyle not shot him, he rapidly would've became armed.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard. With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      > But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants). What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people. Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances. But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).
        willcipriano 5y ago
        Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart. I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I think that's an overly reductive expression of my opinion, which is perhaps why you're struggling to follow. I think it is incredibly likely that if Rittenhouse did not have a gun, then the two people he killed would still be alive, and I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse would be dead today. You are correct that I don't believe that these specific circumstances that led to these deaths should be legal. I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died. As it turns out, none of that is illegal.
  - hajile 5y ago
    Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped. There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way. Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him. Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.
Akronymus 5y ago
> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  Not easily. Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way. I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
      - Akronymus 5y ago
        That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
        5y ago
Ntrails 5y ago
> Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected. Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?
baryphonic 5y ago
> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon. The second man shot at, "jump kick man," was using his feet as weapons when he was shot at. When we use even our bodies in a violent manner, they become weapons. The second man shot was in the act of wielding his skateboard as a weapon, and also grabbed the gun. He became armed when he started using the skateboard as a weapon, and further when he grabbed the gun. The final person shot was literally armed with an illegally-possessed handgun. He was not shot until he approached Rittenhouse and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head. All armed. > Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state. It seems to me that banning sixteen and seventeen year olds from possessing sawed-off shotguns and pistols makes sense outside of a hunting context. I personally didn't find the law particularly strangely worded, unless we're going in with the expectation that it will nail a kid. FWIW, Rittenhouse testified on the stand that he had asked police for advice before his friend bought the rifle, and was told their arrangement complied with the law. That may not be a real legal defense, but I mean, sheesh. Hard to fault anyone who takes pains to comply with the law. > But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards. His father and grandmother live in Kenosha. He had a job there. He had in fact been photographed cleaning graffiti from the walls of a Kenosha high school earlier that same day. It was "his city" as much as anyone else's.
- caeril 5y ago
  > (and he was white in case you're wondering) What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people. For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825 https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825
ksec 5y ago
"Facebook did the right thing" is the most un-HN thing I have read on HN in years. So while I may not agree or disagree with things you said. It is always good to have some balance on HN.
Dakizhu 5y ago
To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      >“After I shoot Mr Rosenbaum, he tried to grab my gun. I was running away. There was a gunshot behind me. After I shot him, I run around the car because I was going to go render first-aid to him,” the teenager said in a recorded TV interview on Monday. >He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.” What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT? Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Did you? https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897 https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897
afiori 5y ago
> I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, His father lives there, it is just a few miles from his legal residence.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  Fair point. I don't think that this was discussed at trial (and probably rightly), but I do question how much he actually visited his father. It seems as though he lived with his mum and sisters half an hour away from Kenosha. His mother and sisters were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Anyway, I don't argue that the simple fact that he was in Kenosha was wrong. Being exactly where he was, at the time he was, with a weapon... I don't really know what I want from this. I certainly don't think that the government should pass laws stopping people from travelling, or from being wherever they want to be, but nonetheless, I feel as though the whole thing was avoidable and ended in tragedy for three families, and yes, I include the Rittenhouse family here. Even though it's been established that Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges, the rumours about the family history are saddening. I don't believe he went out planning to kill people, I think he was playing policeman, but the fact remains that he killed two people and has to live with that Plus I'm sure there are civil suits to follow.

throwntoday 5y ago

Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be. I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.

willcipriano 5y ago
One was "unarmed" with a blunt weapon and the other threatened to kill Kyle prior to his attempt to steal his gun. Had Kyle not shot him, he rapidly would've became armed.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard. With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants). What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people. Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances. But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart. I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
d1sxeyes 5y ago
I think that's an overly reductive expression of my opinion, which is perhaps why you're struggling to follow. I think it is incredibly likely that if Rittenhouse did not have a gun, then the two people he killed would still be alive, and I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse would be dead today. You are correct that I don't believe that these specific circumstances that led to these deaths should be legal. I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died. As it turns out, none of that is illegal.
- hajile 5y ago
  Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped. There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way. Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him. Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.

Akronymus 5y ago

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
Not easily. Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way. I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
    - Akronymus 5y ago
      That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
      - 5y ago

Ntrails 5y ago

> Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected. Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?

baryphonic 5y ago

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon. The second man shot at, "jump kick man," was using his feet as weapons when he was shot at. When we use even our bodies in a violent manner, they become weapons. The second man shot was in the act of wielding his skateboard as a weapon, and also grabbed the gun. He became armed when he started using the skateboard as a weapon, and further when he grabbed the gun. The final person shot was literally armed with an illegally-possessed handgun. He was not shot until he approached Rittenhouse and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head. All armed. > Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state. It seems to me that banning sixteen and seventeen year olds from possessing sawed-off shotguns and pistols makes sense outside of a hunting context. I personally didn't find the law particularly strangely worded, unless we're going in with the expectation that it will nail a kid. FWIW, Rittenhouse testified on the stand that he had asked police for advice before his friend bought the rifle, and was told their arrangement complied with the law. That may not be a real legal defense, but I mean, sheesh. Hard to fault anyone who takes pains to comply with the law. > But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards. His father and grandmother live in Kenosha. He had a job there. He had in fact been photographed cleaning graffiti from the walls of a Kenosha high school earlier that same day. It was "his city" as much as anyone else's.

caeril 5y ago
> (and he was white in case you're wondering) What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people. For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825 https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825

ksec 5y ago

"Facebook did the right thing" is the most un-HN thing I have read on HN in years. So while I may not agree or disagree with things you said. It is always good to have some balance on HN.

Dakizhu 5y ago

To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    >“After I shoot Mr Rosenbaum, he tried to grab my gun. I was running away. There was a gunshot behind me. After I shot him, I run around the car because I was going to go render first-aid to him,” the teenager said in a recorded TV interview on Monday. >He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.” What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT? Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Did you? https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897 https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897

afiori 5y ago

> I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, His father lives there, it is just a few miles from his legal residence.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
Fair point. I don't think that this was discussed at trial (and probably rightly), but I do question how much he actually visited his father. It seems as though he lived with his mum and sisters half an hour away from Kenosha. His mother and sisters were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Anyway, I don't argue that the simple fact that he was in Kenosha was wrong. Being exactly where he was, at the time he was, with a weapon... I don't really know what I want from this. I certainly don't think that the government should pass laws stopping people from travelling, or from being wherever they want to be, but nonetheless, I feel as though the whole thing was avoidable and ended in tragedy for three families, and yes, I include the Rittenhouse family here. Even though it's been established that Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges, the rumours about the family history are saddening. I don't believe he went out planning to kill people, I think he was playing policeman, but the fact remains that he killed two people and has to live with that Plus I'm sure there are civil suits to follow.