5 ms·

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 Rittenho

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.
  - hajile 5y ago
    > 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. He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand). We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans? You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      > You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong. I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum. But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
      - Svettie 5y ago
        The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.
        esyir 5y ago
        Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases. - Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy. - An external agent intervenes, causing the incident - "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town" Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.
yeetman21 5y ago
I agree that Kyle was in a place he should not have been. As to causing trouble, I agree with that, thought may others might not. It must also be stated that the people who engaged with him were also in a place they should not have been in and were also in the process of causing some mischief. All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl. When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.
Maursault 5y ago
> 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. Well put, I disagree only with your last sentence, unless cynical. I think prosecution made a mistake going after intentional homicide charges. All resources and focus should have been on a successful felony gun conviction. Only then should the prosecutor turned to felony murder charges. Even with the jury's finding, the judge should have partially overturned the jury's finding, and found guilty on lesser but included charges to ensure at least a few years of incarceration.
- esyir 5y ago
  So, that's illegal, for one thing. Judges can overrule the jury in a civil case, and only if they determine that "no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict". However, that's null here, as this is a Criminal case. The judge should not, and thankfully cannot overrule the jury here, as that's a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights. I'd also have to ask. The jury, with more exposure to the evidence than anyone else here found him not guilty. What exceptional case/point would you make to say that would show Rittenhouse's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, the maximal, and I mean maximal, punishment for the misdemeanor is 9 months, far less than the few years you suggest.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I don't think that judges should be allowed to overrule juries. You can see how many individual opinions there are in this thread - do you think any one of us in isolation should be allowed to make that decision? The intentional homicide charge was the right thing for the state to do, but I also think it was right he was found not guilty. Based on the law as it's written, I don't think there's anything that Rittenhouse could actually have been charged with that he could have been found guilty of (except possibly the dismissed curfew violation charge). I just can't reconcile that with the fact that a kid took a gun to a protest and killed two people, which I think almost everyone would agree is not a good outcome for society (although I know there have been discussions about the value of human life around Rosenbaum particularly).
blindmute 5y ago
> 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. He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life I think Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life, but I don't agree with the statement that they were imminently threatening his life as a fact. It may be true that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse's life. But neither Huber nor Grosskreutz had done so. You may ask whether Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse constitutes threatening his life, and the answer to that is... maybe? But if the fact alone of pointing a gun at someone is threatening someone's life, then we have to rewind and look at whether Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life. We have video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still at least 20 feet away.

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.
- hajile 5y ago
  > 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. He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand). We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans? You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong. I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum. But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
    - Svettie 5y ago
      The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.
      - esyir 5y ago
        Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases. - Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy. - An external agent intervenes, causing the incident - "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town" Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.

yeetman21 5y ago

I agree that Kyle was in a place he should not have been. As to causing trouble, I agree with that, thought may others might not. It must also be stated that the people who engaged with him were also in a place they should not have been in and were also in the process of causing some mischief. All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl. When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.

Maursault 5y ago

> 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. Well put, I disagree only with your last sentence, unless cynical. I think prosecution made a mistake going after intentional homicide charges. All resources and focus should have been on a successful felony gun conviction. Only then should the prosecutor turned to felony murder charges. Even with the jury's finding, the judge should have partially overturned the jury's finding, and found guilty on lesser but included charges to ensure at least a few years of incarceration.

esyir 5y ago
So, that's illegal, for one thing. Judges can overrule the jury in a civil case, and only if they determine that "no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict". However, that's null here, as this is a Criminal case. The judge should not, and thankfully cannot overrule the jury here, as that's a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights. I'd also have to ask. The jury, with more exposure to the evidence than anyone else here found him not guilty. What exceptional case/point would you make to say that would show Rittenhouse's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, the maximal, and I mean maximal, punishment for the misdemeanor is 9 months, far less than the few years you suggest.
d1sxeyes 5y ago
I don't think that judges should be allowed to overrule juries. You can see how many individual opinions there are in this thread - do you think any one of us in isolation should be allowed to make that decision? The intentional homicide charge was the right thing for the state to do, but I also think it was right he was found not guilty. Based on the law as it's written, I don't think there's anything that Rittenhouse could actually have been charged with that he could have been found guilty of (except possibly the dismissed curfew violation charge). I just can't reconcile that with the fact that a kid took a gun to a protest and killed two people, which I think almost everyone would agree is not a good outcome for society (although I know there have been discussions about the value of human life around Rosenbaum particularly).

blindmute 5y ago

> 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. He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
> I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life I think Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life, but I don't agree with the statement that they were imminently threatening his life as a fact. It may be true that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse's life. But neither Huber nor Grosskreutz had done so. You may ask whether Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse constitutes threatening his life, and the answer to that is... maybe? But if the fact alone of pointing a gun at someone is threatening someone's life, then we have to rewind and look at whether Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life. We have video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still at least 20 feet away.