Kyle Rittenhouse included in heroes list in school

Post Reply New Topic

Someone shoot me if we're just going to split hairs on the topic of kids with guns.

The facts are that we don't allow kids to shoot anybody in this country, you're reading too far into something that isn't there. The kid is innocent until proven guilty, the trajectories of the bullets are not in question.

Apparently the gun nuts on the right wing and those who hate BLM (for reasons we know) think this will be an opportunity to sell the idea that children can protect themselves with armed weapons.

These dangerous nutjobs are lurking just under the surface of the republican party
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florid ... businesses

It sets a very dangerous precedence when they normalise murder as justified.

and clearly have support in my own city of Melbourne given the vociferous defence Rittenhouse has received from people living in my "neck of the woods".

It's amazing the level of reframing of the topic under discussion that is required to go from:

(https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=390749&p=8655248#p8655248)

Through:

(https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=390749&p=8655741#p8655741)

To reach this:

(https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=390749&p=8655805#p8655805)

It's not personal. You're nosing in somewhere you weren't asked to. Americans are disturbed by your level of apparent interest in subjects regarding violence as it relates to our elections. We don't even know what you're saying any longer as a result of your compulsion to have the last word.

Enough.

Nothing anyone posts here is worth clicking on. Let this sensationalist inquest die as it weren't intended to.

fair enough, I'm taking a break from WP anyway

It's hard to say what actually happened because of conflicting reports and the video doesn't actually show much coherently. So I cannot tell how I should feel about Rittenhouse, since no one seems to know what for surely happened yet.

The problem comes from how this is interpreted...
You start with a "left-aligned" protest which devolved into rioting.
Add to this a local member of the community who is asked by people from the town to help protect property\businesses from an expected repeat of the previous 2 evening's riots.

The volatile combination of rioters and those trying to protect their community from them, means conflict is likely to occur.

Based on footage:

Kyle was there to provide first aid (regardless of the "side" the person he was helping was on).
He is also seen as running to put out a fire in a rubbish bin that had been started by one of the rioters.
Shortly afterwards the person who lit the fire is seen on video chasing him.
Crossing a carpark(?) in the pursuit (and gaining on Kyle), he is seen throwing a bag containing a solid object of some variety.
At around this same time, another rioter is seen firing a gun (whether into the air or towards them is not known).
Kyle turns around and the pursuer lunges to grab the gun.
Kyle fires 4 shots which hit him.
Kyle backs off (a further 3 shots from another weapon are heard).
On seeing he isn't being pursued any more, he returns to where the person who was shot was lying on the ground.
A crowd start calling out, so Kyle runs towards the police (to surrender himself, potentially).
While running, he is attacked, and repsonds by firing several times at the people attacking him.

The crucial issue will be whether the shooting of the initial pursuer was justified (self defence), or if the prosecution can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the person who had chased him and lunged for the gun was not a risk such that shooting him was justified - The later people shot would then likely fall under either "self defence" again, or not, depending on the verdict surrounding the initial event...

Well another thing is, why would you lunge at someone with a gun? I mean it feels that these rioters have a death wish. "There is someone with a rifle on the streets. We don't have any guns, but let's get him!" I mean you are going to get yourself killed doing that, even if the person believes they are defending themselves. So why attack an armed person with a gun, especially if you don't have one?

The only "logical" reason that comes to mind regarding the initial encounter was that the pursuer was hoping to get access to the gun for his own use (it is possible he was hoping to tackle Kyle from behind, but the gunshot nearby caused Kyle to turn, which hadn't been expected, leading to the ability for Kyle to fire in order to defend himself).

In the later cases, most likely it was hoping to perform a "citizen's arrest", although even succeeding in doing so could have potentially led to charges of false imprisonment (should laws over there be similar to in Australia, where the person making the arrest has to have observed (not simply been told about) the actual action for which the arrest is being made), or exact some form of "mob justice".

Oh okay, but I didn't think the rioters would risk their lives over a citizen's arrest, since they do not seem to have much of a sense of civic duty at all, unless I am wrong?

As Sir Terry Pratchett wrote: "the IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters"

It's unlikely much "thought" went into the actions outside of hearing someone calling "get him" and them deciding to act - In most, if not all, cases, the people charging at him would have had no idea of what had occurred, and were simply acting based on the shouted request of others, who they likely did not know.

As to "civic duty", it is unknown whether he would have been handed to the police (being the riots were against the police), or some other form of mob justice would have occurred.

However you're spinning it, he broke the law violently.

No "spinning" involved, simply the facts concerning the event.

"Spinning it" would be making claims that someone had "broken the law", potentially with the use of adjectives to make the statement seem more sensational.
Not "spinning it" would be a statement such as "he has been charged with the following <insert charges> and is awaiting trial for these charges.

Killing people is illegal in this country, in which country is it not? Why have you been dancing around this fact for ages?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-says-he-used-coronavirus-stimulus-check-buy-ar-n1248290

Legally, you get the charges for pulling the trigger.