Kenosha shooting suspect called a friend to say he 'killed somebody,' police say, and then shot two

[Bodecea]

You're defending a child molester, violent felon and a convicted burglar who was breaking Federal law by carrying a firearm.

Not at all....but I know that trump cultists are tellers of tall tales. You can't help but lie.....it's in the orange blood.

 

[cpwill]

My parents didn't want me to enlist but they knew they couldn't stop me. This guy wanted to kill and he did. He made an adult choice independent of his parents and he should spend his life in prison. Im against prison for most crimes but this was premeditated and intentional.

This guy was attacked and defended himself. Every single shooting incident he was involved in start with him trying to flee and being chased down. If he'd wanted to kill, he would have just started shooting, he wouldn't have stopped as soon as people stopped assaulting him, and he wouldn't have been trying to run from the mob to the safety of the cops.

This "he wanted to kill and he did" narrative is sans facts and contrary to the available evidence.

 

[cpwill]

He had just shot someone in the head, it's likely that some individuals were trying to wrestle the gun away from him in order to stop him from shooting anyone else. That would be my reaction if the shooter was clearly not a cop especially if the person that was shot was a friend or loved one.

As has been repeatedly shown to you elsewhere, he was running towards the cops when the second group attacked him. All they had to do to stop the violence was let him escape to the cops, and then let the cops deal with it. This "they were trying to protect others by disarming him" narrative is directly contradicted by the video evidence.

Because they didn't want that. They wanted to (in their own words) "Get Him".

 

[apdst]

This guy was attacked and defended himself. Every single shooting incident he was involved in start with him trying to flee and being chased down. If he'd wanted to kill, he would have just started shooting, he wouldn't have stopped as soon as people stopped assaulting him, and he wouldn't have been trying to run from the mob to the safety of the cops.

This "he wanted to kill and he did" narrative is sans facts and contrary to the available evidence.

In the interest of clarity, he only targeted his attackers.

 

[MaryP]

It's really heartwarming how some are sympathetically defending this young man. A little different reaction when it was 17 year old David Hogg who lived through his classmates be mown down by a gunman.

 

[calamity]

In the interest of clarity, he only targeted his attackers.

He shot a 5'3" midget who was chasing him, shooting him 5 times, including once in the back.

He shot guy trying to grab his gun.

He shot another guy making a citizens arrest.


The Little Nazi Boy gonna fry.

 

[apdst]

He shot a 5'3" midget who was chasing him, shooting him 5 times, including once in the back.

He shot guy trying to grab his gun.

He shot another guy making a citizens arrest.


The Little Nazi Boy gonna fry.

Right, he shot him in the front and in the back, while the child molester was chasing him. Maybe in 2030 that'll make sense, but here in 2020, that's just a stupid ****ing thing to say. :lamo

He shot a convicted felon who was illegally possessing a firearm who was fixing to shoot him.

Then he shot a skaterboy who employed deadly force.

Good luck getting a conviction. :lamo

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This guy was attacked and defended himself. Every single shooting incident he was involved in start with him trying to flee and being chased down. If he'd wanted to kill, he would have just started shooting, he wouldn't have stopped as soon as people stopped assaulting him, and he wouldn't have been trying to run from the mob to the safety of the cops.

This "he wanted to kill and he did" narrative is sans facts and contrary to the available evidence.

Bull****. He inserted himself into this situation dressed as he was and carrying a rifle because he hoped he would get to shoot a protestor. After he murdered the first guy the other protesters tried to disarm him, so he murdered some more. This little **** wasn't in any real danger, and the little danger he was in he put himself in.

He wanted to feel like a soldier dressed up in his tacticool gear. Soldiers in Afghanistan have a far stricter roe than he followed. I hope this little bastard spends every moment of the rest of his life in a prison cell where he belongs.

As has been repeatedly shown to you elsewhere, he was running towards the cops when the second group attacked him. All they had to do to stop the violence was let him escape to the cops, and then let the cops deal with it. This "they were trying to protect others by disarming him" narrative is directly contradicted by the video evidence.

Because they didn't want that. They wanted to (in their own words) "Get Him".

Bull**** again. He murdered 3 people then got in a car and went home without any police interaction. Your nonsense about how he ws about to turn himself in before he murdered the second batch is unsupported nonsense.

 

[cpwill]

Bull****. He inserted himself into this situation dressed as he was and carrying a rifle because he hoped he would get to shoot a protestor. After he murdered the first guy the other protesters tried to disarm him, so he murdered some more.

Unfortunately, this narrative is in direct contradiction to the available evidence.

From that famous right-wing-terrorist-rag The New York Times:

...First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting

Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time....
​

If Rittenhouse was there because he wanted to kill some protestors, he would have simply started killing protestors. Certainly he wouldn't have tried to avoid violence.

Instead, every single engagement starts with Rittenhouse trying to disengage from a crowd that is following him and get away from them without violence, followed by someone in that crowd attacking him, followed by Rittenhouse shooting the people attacking him and only the people attacking him. When at least one of the people attacking him puts his hands up and backs away, Rittenhouse ceases fire. If Rittenhouse was there deliberately to kill protestors, that guy would be dead - but instead, he's fine.

More to the point, if Rittenhouse was there to kill protestors, he wouldn't have been isolated in the first place because what got him isolated was him leaving his position to render first aid to protestors.

The guy who appears to have decided to start this violence is the first dude to attack - who we have on video shouting "SHOOT ME N****R" at a pretty calm Kyle prior to the altercation. After he lunges at Kyle and Kyle shoots him, the crowd decides "Get Him", and Kyle first tries to run and, then, when down on the ground and surrounded, shoots the people from the mob who are assaulting him.

Should he have been there? Nope. He's 17. He broke the law by walking around with a weapon. Even if the store owner asked for help defending his store, Kyle should not have been part of the group that did so. It was stupid of him to be there, it was illegal for him to be there with a weapon, it wasn't particularly bright of him to leave his group, and it was incredibly stupid of his parents to let him be there at night (assuming they knew his intentions). None of which then means that he wasn't acting in self defense when he was attacked and acted in self defense.


Real life tends to be more complex and nuanced than simple morality plays in which My Side Perfect, Your Side Perfectly Evil.

Soldiers in Afghanistan have a far stricter roe than he followed.

I happen to know for a fact that this is incorrect - soldiers (and sailors, and Marines) in Afghanistan retain the right to self-defense. In general, at least for Marines, we were taught day one - if someone in a crowd tries to grab your weapon from you or isolate and take you down, you defend yourself and your buddy, including with deadly force.

Now cops often have looser ROE's than we do - and that's a real problem, and one that's led to the killing of innocent Americans. It's something that needs to be fixed.

However, if you are saying that soldiers are trained to allow mobs to beat them up and take their weapons without defending themselves, well, that would explain why ya'll kept getting captured.

he was running towards the cops when the second group attacked him. All they had to do to stop the violence was let him escape to the cops, and then let the cops deal with it. This "they were trying to protect others by disarming him" narrative is directly contradicted by the video evidence.

Because they didn't want that. They wanted to (in their own words) "Get Him".

Bull**** again.

Actually, no. That is literally what happened, as demonstrated in the videos of that happening.

 

[calamity]

Unfortunately, this narrative is in direct contradiction to the available evidence.

From that famous right-wing-terrorist-rag The New York Times:

...First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting

Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time....​

If Rittenhouse was there because he wanted to kill some protestors, he would have simply started killing protestors. Certainly he wouldn't have tried to avoid violence. Instead, every single engagement starts with Rittenhouse trying to disengage from a crowd that is following him and get away from them without violence, followed by someone in that crowd attacking him, followed by Rittenhouse shooting the people attacking him and only the people attacking him. When at least one of the people attacking him puts his hands up and backs away, Rittenhouse ceases fire. If Rittenhouse was there deliberately to kill protestors, that guy would be dead - but instead, he's fine.

More to the point, if Rittenhouse was there to kill protestors, he wouldn't have been isolated in the first place because what got him isolated was him leaving his position to render first aid to protestors.


Now, should he have been there? Nope. He's 17. Even if the store owner asked for help defending his store, Kyle should not have been part of the group that did so. It was stupid of him to be there, it wasn't particularly bright of him to leave his group, and it was incredibly stupid of his parents to let him be there at night (assuming they knew his intentions).

Real life tends to be more complex and nuanced than simple morality plays in which My Side Perfect, Your Side Perfectly Evil.

Though it's interesting that so much of the left, which has spent the last several months insisting that they can't be associated with violent rioters, is now rushing to the defense of "their side", and "their side" turns out to be "violent rioters".




I happen to know for a fact that this is incorrect - soldiers (and sailors, and Marines) in Afghanistan retain the right to self-defense. In general, at least for Marines, we were taught day one - if someone in a crowd tries to grab your weapon from you or isolate and take you down, you defend yourself and your buddy with the exact same weapon they are trying to grab.

However, if you are saying that soldiers are trained to allow angry mobs to beat them up and take their weapons without defending themselves, well, that would explain why ya'll kept getting captured.




Actually, no. That is literally what happened, as demonstrated in the videos of that happening.

Mr Rittenhouse is going to fry.

 

[calamity]

Right, he shot him in the front and in the back, while the child molester was chasing him. Maybe in 2030 that'll make sense, but here in 2020, that's just a stupid ****ing thing to say. :lamo

He shot a convicted felon who was illegally possessing a firearm who was fixing to shoot him.

Then he shot a skaterboy who employed deadly force.

Good luck getting a conviction. :lamo

Yeah, I still remember when you pretended that Fields was fleeing from "attackers" when he ran down Heyer.

How did that work out for ya?

 

[snakestretcher]

Perhaps. I will have to wait for all the evidence to come out about this shooting to determine whether it was justified. Having looked at the videos, it appears to be self-defense, especially since in both he was trying to leave the situation while being accosted/attacked.

And keep in mind, while it does look bad to a jury, a justifiable shooting in self defense does not become unjustified based on acts AFTER the shooting. If he was justified and in reasonable fear of his life, it does not matter whether he went to the police, called a friend and left the scene, or stayed and danced a merry jig.

And even if the shootings were found to be justified, it appears that the young man still committed multiple offenses for which he can be prosecuted. At the end of the day, I just cannot fathom why any parent would knowingly drop off a child in their care at a riot as though they were dropping them off at a sleepover or an afternoon at the mall.

Yes, he was so in fear of his life that he was calmly jogging up a street and then walking toward cops without announcing his terror to them. Then he went home, but not before calling a buddy to announce he had shot someone. Call me a sceptic, but those are not the actions of an innocent person...
I also cannot fathom why a parent would drive their 17 year-old kid across state lines to a demonstration, in the knowledge he was illegally carrying a lethal weapon-and if the kid didn't know it was an illegal act he had no business owning guns in the first place.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, I still remember when you pretended that Fields was fleeing from "attackers" when he ran down Heyer.

How did that work out for ya?

How many friendly fire incidents have your communist pals had this year? :lamo