New arrest warrant for Kyle Rittenhouse....

[ASHES]

Follow this through to it’s logical conclusion; If Rittenhouse wasn’t at the protest, illegally in possession of a rifle that he paid a friend to break federal law to purchase for him, would Rosenbaum have chased him?

If Rittenhouse had stayed in his own home state in the first place, would Rosenbaum chased him?

We've heard that one a thousand times. Try mine.

 

[US&THEM]

Likely a plea deal is the only way the prosecutors could win the case in their minds and why they over charged him. If it went to trial Kyle would likely get off on self defence and the prosecutors know it.

Self defense goes away after he didn’t call 911 or try to render first aid while he was equipped with his first aid gear. Firing 6 shots at an unarmed person shows his intent was to kill hence his statement to Black “I shot for center mass”. His intent was to kill not to defend himself from a person who unarmed.

 

[ASHES]

The video you can hear him fire 3 times and then an additional 3 for a total of 6 shots fired. He may not have hit all 6 but he fired six.

No. Ziminski fires once, KR fires 4 times, unknown gunman fires 3 more times.

 

[ASHES]

With how well detailed and generally objective the Wikipedia article is, I'm surprised they don't address the last three shots of the first confrontation that weren't fired by KR. It's not like they're irrelevant. They're never mentioned afaics.

 

[Kreton]

right it's whether or not it's self-defense.

That is not how our Constitution works. You representing innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state to prove that he committed murder.

Clearly you've never paid any attention what so ever to any self defense claim.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Self defense goes away after he didn’t call 911 or try to render first aid while he was equipped with his first aid gear. Firing 6 shots at an unarmed person shows his intent was to kill hence his statement to Black “I shot for center mass”. His intent was to kill not to defend himself from a person who unarmed.

No, in this case lethal self defence is the act of defending oneself during an altercation and if it was justified in applying it. The aftermath of that self defence is a different matter. A justified self defence does not go to murder simply for rendering aid or not. Considering active rioters in the area the danger is not over and if it was safe for him to render aid with his back turned. Besides McGinnis was already rendering aid to the rioter.

 

[ASHES]

Clearly you've never paid any attention what so ever to any self defense claim.

Instead of telling him what he's never paid attention to, how about telling us what exactly you think is incorrect?

 

[Kreton]

Instead of telling him what he's never paid attention to, how about telling us what exactly you think is incorrect?

If you want to read, I already have. In this thread. That he replied. Very simple to find.

 

[ASHES]

If you want to read, I already have. In this thread. That he replied. Very simple to find.

I didn't see where you demonstrated that he was wrong. Just claimed it. The state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that KR acted with malice aforethought, and that he did not act in self-defense. KR is innocent until proven guilty. What did I miss?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We've heard that one a thousand times. Try mine.

Nah, the “logical conclusion” in mine is far more likely than yours.

 

[SkyFox76]

The video you can hear him fire 3 times and then an additional 3 for a total of 6 shots fired. He may not have hit all 6 but he fired six.

Sorry this is incorrect. First shot came from Ziminski. Then four rapid shots from Rittenhouse followed by 3 as Rittenhouse is circling around the car and comes back to where Rosenbaum is. I don't believe those last three have been determined on who fired them, but the overhead video shows possible muzzle flashes from someone close to the street as people are scattering.

Directly from the criminal complaint:

A second video showed Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum continuing to move across the parking lot and approach a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard, and then a man shouts, “F**k you!” prosecutors said. Afterward, Rosenbaum approaches Rittenhouse and gets close and four more loud bangs are heard, prosecutors said.

 

[ASHES]

Nah, the “logical conclusion” in mine is far more likely than yours.

Yes, but he did have the rifle, and Rosenbaum did chase him. What was Rosenbaum going to do next?

 

[SkyFox76]

With how well detailed and generally objective the Wikipedia article is, I'm surprised they don't address the last three shots of the first confrontation that weren't fired by KR. It's not like they're irrelevant. They're never mentioned afaics.

Somebody who was dissecting the overhead video pointed out a possibility in the crowd of people that were scattering beyond the parked cars. To me the sound with those shots sounds like a plate glass window falling but to me it looks like all the windows are boarded up. So I can only guess that a bullet went through the plywood and the window fell inside the building.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, but he did have the rifle, and Rosenbaum did chase him. What was Rosenbaum going to do next?

Thing is, we’ll never know for sure, because Rittenhouse murdered Rosenbaum a few moments after he threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse.

Any one of many possible changes in what happened that night might have prevented the two murders and attempted murder by Rittenhouse, but just one would’ve absolutely guaranteed it; Rittenhouse not being there.

 

[ASHES]

Somebody who was dissecting the overhead video pointed out a possibility in the crowd of people that were scattering beyond the parked cars. To me the sound with those shots sounds like a plate glass window falling but to me it looks like all the windows are boarded up. So I can only guess that a bullet went through the plywood and the window fell inside the building.

Is there an unedited version of the second angle first shooting video that captures those shots? That should be better located to hear the noise you're talking about than the drone.

 

[ASHES]

Thing is, we’ll never know for sure, because Rittenhouse murdered Rosenbaum a few moments after he threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse.

*Killed
Murder is your conclusion.

Any one of many possible changes in what happened that night might have prevented the two murders and attempted murder by Rittenhouse, but just one would’ve absolutely guaranteed it; Rittenhouse not being there.

Or Rosenbaum not chasing him down and attempting to... do what? Have a chat? Valiantly disarm the little Nazi? Too bad that would have been multiple felonies for him. KR is allowed to defend himself with deadly force against forcible felonies.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

*Killed
Murder is your conclusion.

And killed is yours. The jury will decide who’s correct.

Or Rosenbaum not chasing him down and attempting to... do what? Have a chat? Valiantly disarm the little Nazi? Too bad that would have been multiple felonies for him. KR is allowed to defend himself with deadly force against forcible felonies.

Yep, Rittenhouse does have the right to defend himself. With deadly force if justified.

My point was that changing the single factor of Rittenhouse’s being there (illegally armed, uninvited from another state) would’ve prevented 2 deaths and a third wounded and partially disabled for life.

 

[ASHES]

And killed is yours. The jury will decide who’s correct.

It isn't a conclusion Huber and Rosenbaum were killed, it is a fact.

Yep, Rittenhouse does have the right to defend himself. With deadly force if justified.

My point was that changing the single factor of Rittenhouse’s being there (illegally armed, uninvited from another state) would’ve prevented 2 deaths and a third wounded and partially disabled for life.

Uninvited? You don't think his friend that lives in Kenosha invited him?

Rosenbaum not chasing him down and attempting to disarm him would have prevented him from being shot.

Strongarm robbery, battery of a minor, and felon in possession of a firearm are all more serious charges than minor in possession of a firearm, which is a misdemeanor.

Should KR not have committed that (possible) misdemeanor? Yes. Should Rosenbaum not attempted his three felonies? Also yes.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

And killed is yours. The jury will decide who’s correct.

Yep, Rittenhouse does have the right to defend himself. With deadly force if justified.

My point was that changing the single factor of Rittenhouse’s being there (illegally armed, uninvited from another state) would’ve prevented 2 deaths and a third wounded and partially disabled for life.

We could nitpick over what could have prevented the deaths. Such as felons illegally rioting or assaulting armed individuals or Kyle legally being there although illegally possessing a firearm. Both the rioters and Kyle would have benefited more at staying at home. They didn't so we have to go by what actions they did that lead them to that point.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It isn't a conclusion Huber and Rosenbaum were killed, it is a fact.

How the jury classifies/concludes the deaths and injury is what matters.

Uninvited? You don't think his friend that lives in Kenosha invited him?

Rittenhouse’s felonious friend has no standing as a representative of the community to invite him in the first place.

Should KR not have committed that (possible) misdemeanor? Yes.

There is no “possible” to Rittenhouse’s guilt in the Class A misdemeanor, punishable by 9 months in jail and/or a $10,000 fine, only the gaveling of the verdict.

Should Rosenbaum not attempted his three felonies? Also yes.

Rosenbaum was a degenerate pedophile. The world is better off without him, IMO. That, however, is irrelevant to the events that night.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

When this white nationalist goober is spending the rest of his life in jail, I wonder if there will be “Justice for Kyle” rallies and such.

 

[ASHES]

How the jury classifies/concludes the deaths and injury is what matters.

I agree. Since KR is innocent under the law, I will wait for the jury before I call it murder.

Rittenhouse’s felonious friend has no standing as a representative of the community to invite him in the first place.

Sour grapes. He hasn't been convicted of a felony either. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

There is no “possible” to Rittenhouse’s guilt in the Class A misdemeanor, punishable by 9 months in jail and/or a $10,000 fine, only the gaveling of the verdict.

Yes there is. We have already discussed 948.60 3(c), and have agreed to disagree on that point until a judge or jury clarifies the statute.

Rosenbaum was a degenerate pedophile. The world is better off without him, IMO. That, however, is irrelevant to the events that night.

I don't celebrate his death, but his known criminality, violent tendencies, and mental instability are all very relevant to his behaviour that night, which was a driving factor in the interaction.

 

[digitusmedius]

That is not what Black originally told the police but either way it doesn't matter. It was a straw purchase and that is a felony for both of them.

Well, well....he and Rittenhouse are liars. Who woulda thunk?

 

[digitusmedius]

He rightfully was in fear of his life. There are also videos of him walking by cops with his hands up. To say the people chasing him to arrest him is disingenuous at best. Calling Rittenhouse a Nazi and white supremacist is plain stupid.

Of course he was afraid. He'd just murdered a man (by his own admission in a phone call to Black) and was desperate to get away. He associates with Proud Boy nazi thugs who sing his praises, relishes the attention he gets from them and happily joins a photo shoot with them. What's he to you, then? A hero?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I agree. Since KR is innocent under the law, I will wait for the jury before I call it murder.

Fair enough.

Sour grapes. He hasn't been convicted of a felony either. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

As Rittenhouse’s trial hasn’t begun yet, “sour grapes” doesn’t apply.

Yes there is. We have already discussed 948.60 3(c), and have agreed to disagree on that point until a judge or jury clarifies the statute.

Nonsense. Video evidence, alone, proves beyond any doubt Rittenhouse’s guilt in illegally carrying the long gun in public. The only question is what the jury/judge does about it.

I don't celebrate his death, but his known criminality, violent tendencies, and mental instability are all very relevant to his behaviour that night, which was a driving factor in the interaction.

More nonsense. What motivated Rosenbaum’s actions that night are irrelevant to Rittenhouse’s actions, or his upcoming trial.