7 ms·

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" i

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.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        > But none of them killed anyone. They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        > They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct: - the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him. - Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him) - Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.
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.

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.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        > But none of them killed anyone. They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        > They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct: - the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him. - Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him) - Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.

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.