Octopus，what pray tell is relevant and accurate? Kyle Rittenhaus, a minor, is out after the posted curfew with a long gun that is not legal for him to posses. Two people dead and one injured by his trigger finger.
Which viewpoint is more relevant?
Opps, my bad, he can have the long gun if he is out hunting, which seems to be the case here.
You are failing to make any point. Rittenhouse, which is the proper spelling, has the right to defend himself. That right doesn’t disappear because of one’s biases towards rioters or any other irrelevant factor.
I don’t understand the idea that he went there looking for someone to shoot.
I get it. He is 17 years old and should not be putting himself in that situation. I agree. But we generally don’t blame people for that. There he was, foolish choice or no, so his actions have to be judged based on the facts as they transpired.
It is undisputed that he was openly carrying a scary looking AR-15. If there is one guy there not to fuck with, it’s him. So he put all and sundry on notice as to what he was capable of doing. If he went there with a concealed pistol carrying a “George Floyd had it coming!” sign and then shot someone who attacked him, then I might understand the “baiting” accusations (even though, still, we would agree that nobody should be physically attacked for their speech).
This thread seems to be breaking along the gun control lines of thought, but it seems clear cut to me that this shooting was lawful self defense, and that nobody who got shot was unaware that Rittenhouse had the ability to defend himself with lethal force. I just don’t know why in these types of citizen (purported) self defense shootings, we look at the one group, despite all of their lawbreaking, and impugn the most innocent of motives, but expect the person defending his life to be as pure as the driven snow.
Curfew violation? He was one year too young to carry a gun? Seriously? These people attacked him, basically calling what they thought was a bluff that he wouldn’t shoot. Why do we not talk about that part of it?
How so? This sounds like the argument that has been repudiated ad nauseum about shall issue concealed carry that disputes over the “12 items or less” checkout lane in the grocery store will result in shootouts.
If we were in public, both with pistols on our hips, and engaged in the most vicious of verbal arguments, would you draw your gun? Neither would I. If one of us did, that person would deserve to be shot because he escalated a verbal argument into a lethal one. Do you have statistics that this is a problem in open carry states?
A gun is a pretty expensive walking stick.
Just in case it isn’t understood–in open carry states, protests like this have generally been heavily attended by people openly carrying firearms. I see a lot of weird theories that some guys saw a kid with a gun and went into some Rambo mode where they had no choice but to attack and disarm this clearly deranged person. The actual reality is hundreds of people were walking the streets of Kenosha that night armed with guns, it is very unlikely Rittenhouse was the only such person Rosenbaum et al. saw, or the first such person they saw. The focus on him simply carrying the gun being what precipitated the problem seems odd to me since hundreds of other people were walking around similarly and the left wing protesters didn’t feel the need to try to “rush” those guys to disarm them.
It seems very unlikely to me that what started this conflict was Rosenbaum saw Rittenhouse with a rifle, thought “oh my god an active shooter” and in an act of heroism rushed towards him to try and disarm him. It seems far more likely (given the video evidence) some sort of verbal altercation occurred, which lead to Rittenhouse moving away from Rosenbaum, and Rosenbaum pursuing. The specifics of that altercation we don’t know for sure.
If open carrying at a political gathering / protest etc in an open carry state was any evidence of likelihood that the person was planning to shoot people, I proffer the number of shootings in America would be probably an order of magnitude higher than there are. There are hundreds of such events every year with thousands of attendees, a huge many of them armed.
Rittenhouse did not shoot 100% of the people who did not attack him.
The idea that widespread casual gun possession doesn’t lead to more shootings seems specious to me, as it fairly obviously does.
I spent a large chunk of my life defending gun rights against urban liberals who were “afraid of” and “unfamiliar” with guns. But I’ve spent the last 10-15 years frequently arguing against New-Era NRA extremists who genuinely believe our constitution and society was built on absolute, unrestricted gun ownership above and not subject to, any form of law passed. It’s an aside but there’s a reason for much of our history frontier towns that found themselves plagued with gun trouble would pass laws requiring you to “check your guns” with the sheriff for the duration of your stay, or would prohibit guns being carried in saloons etc. Such common-sense local gun laws were seen as a logical way to stop frequently brash and stupid young men from escalating what ought to be a fist fight into a shooting. It’s only in the last decade or so that people on the far right have started to suggest such laws have no history in our country and should be banned, despite them being familiar to the very men who wrote the constitution. In service of this dubious goal, the right frequently does what you do here–attempts to suggest that widespread, casual gun ownership, sans any restrictions, does nothing to increase the likelihood of violence.
Whether Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense or not (and so far, I think he has a pretty strong argument that he was), it is undeniable that Wisconsin’s decision to let its citizens walk around openly carrying firearms is a direct culprit in this shooting.
I finished watching the trial vids on YouTube. The prosecutor has introduced a lot of video from that night. There were numerous people live streaming. The police detectives did a good job searching social media.
Kyle is seen many times moving among the crowd asking if anyone needs medical. He’s carrying a fire extinguisher and rushing to put out a vehicle fire when he’s chased by Joseph Rosenbaum. The defense has already argued that he wanted that AR15. Kyle certainly looked naive and vulnerable. Someone that could be easily manhandled. The people in Kenosha should be relieved that Rosenbaum didn’t get possession of that gun.
The defense’s justification for the other shootings will be more problematic. I expect the prosecutor will argue the victims were attempting to subdue a violent killer. A lot of people can be heard shouting “stop him! He shot someone!”. The defense has a big problem ahead.
The Washington Post put together background on the victims. It seems well researched and fair.
I don’t believe the idea that he went there for any other reason.
My biggest concern with open carry is the risk of someone taking the weapon from you.
That’s why prison guards walk among the prisoners unarmed. The guard can be jumped at anytime.
A fresh faced kid like Kyle was a tempting target. He would have been much safer and respected (by the crowd) only carrying a medical bag and helping with minor injuries.
It’s interesting that Kyle’s best friend, Dominick Black testified he stayed at the car lot with the militia. He understood safety in numbers and focused on protecting that property from fires.
My biggest concern with open carry is trigger happy fools having a trigger nearby.
Open carry isn’t legal because of a specific statute. It’s a right protected by the state constitution. A right that has been confirmed by state supreme court rulings. There are statutes that codify open carry (recognize it’s legality) but none that makes it legal by statute alone.
Even if it was illegal I bet that kid would have just worn a concealed firearm and eventually would have had it out. Either way, it wasn’t legal for him to have a gun at that moment.
Funny thing. A century plus ago open carry was the norm for firearms carry and concealed carry was mostly illegal and frowned upon.
Comparing a CO surrounded by convicted felons to someone just openly carrying in public is absurd. Obviously Rittenhouse wasn’t just taking a stroll in public but everyday in the U.S. people open carry and don’t get disarmed.
I should have made it clear that I was focused on the unusual conditions that night in Kenosha. Thankfully, our routine days in public are much safer.
For people that aren’t watching the trial…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/more-than-a-dozen-video-clips-were-played-during-kyle-rittenhouses-trial-last-week-heres-what-they-showed/ar-AAQqBP3
The second paragraph does not follow from the first. If the Rosenbaum shooting was solid self defense, and others misinterpreted it as an active shooter going crazy and attempted to disarm Rittenhouse, the law doesn’t require that he lie down and be beaten to death. The question is not one of ultimate justice for the universe, but whether Rittenhouse should be punished. And if he acted in lawful self defense against Rosenbaum, then he acted lawfully against the others attempting to disarm him, even if those others were doing what they did in good faith.
He was trying to surrender to police. The most embarrassing moment is seeing Kyle approach, hands up, and the squad car reverses. Kyle is pepper sprayed and told to leave. He couldn’t surrender at the station because it was barricaded.
He ultimately surrenders at the station in Antioch, Illinois (his hometown) . His willingness to surrender will help the defense.
SO embarrassing! “I’ve satisfied my blood lust, and I’m not sure what to do! Awkward!!”
Yeah, that tracks - a century ago the murder rate was like twice what it is today.