The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder

[SoulBiter]

Insight

Kyle whatshisname was charged with murder because the first person he shot was not whist "defending" himself. There is no video footage of the first shooting.

Witnesses have said they heard the gunshot and then saw white armed male running towards a crowd of protesters.

There is a video. Sorry but its a facebook link.. I could not find a youtube version of this and its pretty graphic and might not stay up long.

https://www.facebook.com/mrboomstick/vi ... 790262651/

At 1.21 you will see Joe Rosenbaum threating Kyle. Then you see Kyle running AWAY from the danger with Joe hot in pursuit. Joe throws something at Kyle which looks like it misses him and explodes (water jug?) Kyle turns with the weapon and Joe hesitates. Kyle fires one warning shot and takes that opportunity to try to escape. Joe would have none of that and chases him down. As Kyle realizes he cant outrun Joe, he turns as Joe reaches him and fires killing Joe. He sees that someone is tending to Joe and he gets his cell phone out and calls someone.

The rest of this we know, he runs toward police with a hot crowd in pursuit and eventually defends himself again.

The narrative on this is busted. A clear case of self defense. The only thing he can be charged could have to do with his age and carrying a firearm, but I don't know the laws in that area.

[sgt.null]

Seems a class c misdemeanor for having the gun.

Self defense on the rest.

[SoulBiter]

Upon further clarification of the laws of Wisconsin, he will win every aspect of this case. His lawyer states:

It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.

Kyle was actually attempting to put out a dumpster fire that the rioters had set. The rioters got enraged by that. Kyle actually attempted to retreat.

[Skyweir]

Of course that is what his lawyer will assert that's what he is paid for.

[Skyweir]

ok I watched the facebook video and it is definitely interesting .. but it is also is a narrative driven perspective.

It will be interesting to see exactly how his trial will go - and it will be interesting to see exactly what is made of the video coverage .. as it is pixelated and unclear.

The footage is obviously edited which will not assist and could well have admissibility issues because of that, nevertheless it only has to cast doubt .. and it does.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Upon further clarification of the laws of Wisconsin, he will win every aspect of this case. His lawyer states:

It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.

I don't know whether I'd take that to the bank. 16 and older can carry that rifle while hunting, but open carry in WI is for 18 and older. Like I said, it's murky.

From what's publicly available, it certainly seems like a slam dunk on self defense.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

10 people in Chicago killed over the weekend, but no one will protest those deaths because black deaths caused by black perpetrators do not matter to the blm. Those are not right-wing-caused deaths, either, or white supremacists, or police. Who is hunting down black Americans again?

[SoulBiter]

ok I watched the facebook video and it is definitely interesting .. but it is also is a narrative driven perspective.

It will be interesting to see exactly how his trial will go - and it will be interesting to see exactly what is made of the video coverage .. as it is pixelated and unclear.

The footage is obviously edited which will not assist and could well have admissibility issues because of that, nevertheless it only has to cast doubt .. and it does.

There is no doubt he is running away when accosted and he was defending himself when he shot the first guy. But I am sure the attorney will subpoena the unedited phone records of those videos.

[wayfriend]

The narrative on this is busted. A clear case of self defense.

Patently false. You can't claim self-defense after you walk around town to find an altercation and then jump into the middle of it.

He was doing the CLASSIC, repeated so many times it is trite, seeking-an-excuse-to-shoot-someone move. Highly favored by the militias. And the law has torn down such a defense before.

It goes pear-shaped long before that, when his group asked to be deputized in order to help maintain law and order. They got a "hell no". So they took it upon themselves anyway. And here we are. You can't claim self-dense when you do that.

The altercation did not begin, as SoulBiter so succinctly obfuscates, with Kyle being threatened. It began when he decided to walk around with a gun and do some lawing and ordering. That led directly to his being "threatened" - which, in a non-racist world, would be considered self-defense on the other guy's part.

[SoulBiter]

Just in case anyone wonders. I conceal carry and when I lived in Georgia, I open carried. A lot. It is not unusual to walk into stores and see handguns open carried and long rifles open carried (albeit less often).

When I open or conceal carry, I am not looking for trouble. But I am prepared for it. Nor does my open or conceal carry mean that if I have to shoot someone that it is premeditated because I am carrying.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Just in case anyone wonders. I conceal carry and when I lived in Georgia, I open carried. A lot. It is no unusual to walk into stores and see handguns open carried and long rifles open carried (albeit less often).

When I open or conceal carry, I am not looking for trouble. But I am prepared for it. Nor does my open or conceal carry mean that if I have to shoot someone that it is premeditated because I am carrying.

This. I'm in Florida. It's unusual to go someplace and not see either an open firearm, or someone who's clearly carrying concealed. I rarely go out without carrying.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I live in Texas. If i don't see a gun on any particular day that is unusual. I could also open carry my katana, the machete, and the large boot knife if I wanted to.

[Gaius Octavius]

The narrative on this is busted. A clear case of self defense.

Patently false. You can't claim self-defense after you walk around town to find an altercation and then jump into the middle of it.

He was doing the CLASSIC, repeated so many times it is trite, seeking-an-excuse-to-shoot-someone move. Highly favored by the militias. And the law has torn down such a defense before.

It goes pear-shaped long before that, when his group asked to be deputized in order to help maintain law and order. They got a "hell no". So they took it upon themselves anyway. And here we are. You can't claim self-dense when you do that.

The altercation did not begin, as SoulBiter so succinctly obfuscates, with Kyle being threatened. It began when he decided to walk around with a gun and do some lawing and ordering. That led directly to his being "threatened" - which, in a non-racist world, would be considered self-defense on the other guy's part.

I agree with WF here. You can't go looking for trouble and opportunities to kill and then claim "self-defense."

That's like the guy who kept having teens break into his house. One day, he drove away in his car and then walked back to his house. The teens thought he was gone, so they broke into his house. He was waiting for them to break in, and then he shot them to death. He claimed "self-defense," but that was thrown out, and he was sentenced to prison for pre-meditated murder.

[Gaius Octavius]

Part of any responsible use of a firearm is the old adage that it's better to avoid a conflict/de-escalate than to use your weapon.

If you go to these riots with a weapon and then use said weapon to kill people, I hope you get what's coming to you. I hope you get sentenced to death and executed. You are a murderer. A criminal.

Also, Rittinghouse was illegally using the firearm because he was 17 years old, and he could only open carry if he was at least 18 years old.

[Gaius Octavius]

Rittinghouse's use of the weapon to kill people was a clear-cut case of premeditated murder. Citizens do not have the "right" to go "maintain order." That is the responsibility of law enforcement.

If it were up to me, he would be sentenced to life in prison.

[SoulBiter]

Rittinghouse's use of the weapon to kill people was a clear-cut case of premeditated murder. Citizens do not have the "right" to go "maintain order." That is the responsibility of law enforcement.

If it were up to me, he would be sentenced to life in prison.

Well I am glad your twisted sense of justice is not the one that will rule the day. First there is nothing premeditated about him open carrying a weapon. I dont lose my first amendment right when I am using my second amendment right. Kyle never shot anyone until he was attacked. He attempted to withdraw until there was no where else to go. Then he attempted to head toward police when he was attacked again.

If I was going to an area like the one he was in, I would definitely go armed. If you attack me and my life is in danger. I WILL shoot to defend myself. Period. YOU do not have the right to tell me when I can and cannot use my second amendment rights. If I am carrying (either openly or concealed) and you attack me, I do have the right to defend myself. There would be little point to having an open carry law for self defense if you cant use it for self defense. There are limits to that but in no way did he breach those limits. Again, simply going to an area where there is the chance of violence and being armed, is not premeditation.

The self defense laws in Wisconsin are pretty clear.

You can use force against another person if you reasonably believe force is necessary to prevent the imminent death or serious bodily injury of yourself or another.

The law does not require that you become injured before using self defense. It doesnt even require you to actually be in any danger. Instead, the law is all about what you reasonably believe under the circumstances.

If an argument escalates to violence, it may not be clear who started the fight. If you initiated or escalated the violence, then you may lose your right to self defense. However, if you attempt to withdraw from the fight and are attacked, your right to self defense again reasserts itself.

There is NOTHING in the law that says that you cant go guard a warehouse or building. NOTHING.

[SoulBiter]

That's like the guy who kept having teens break into his house. One day, he drove away in his car and then walked back to his house. The teens thought he was gone, so they broke into his house. He was waiting for them to break in, and then he shot them to death. He claimed "self-defense," but that was thrown out, and he was sentenced to prison for pre-meditated murder.

These two things are quite a bit different. I looked that case up. It happened in 2012. Legal analysts have said that :

Legal analysts have stated that the initial shootings most likely would have been justified under Minnesota's laws, but that the subsequent shots were not justified once any threat had been removed

Now I don't actually believe that. He set up a tarp ahead of time to put the dead bodies on. He set up a video to get it all on film. He was very specific about where he was. He never warned them in any way. After he shot them and they disengaged/were wounded no threat, he specifically shot them again, reloading in order to ensure they were dead. He was using a 22.

That is a heck of a lot different than shooting someone when you clearly tried to disengage and run from them and they continued to pursue you to do bodily harm.

[SoulBiter]

Part of any responsible use of a firearm is the old adage that it's better to avoid a conflict/de-escalate than to use your weapon.

If you go to these riots with a weapon and then use said weapon to kill people, I hope you get what's coming to you. I hope you get sentenced to death and executed. You are a murderer. A criminal.

There are a ton of people, both left and right, both white and black, that are carrying firearms openly in these zones. If they get attacked, I will bet they will shoot to defend themselves and rightly so. AND its is very possible and likely that they would be found innocent of murder.

Also, Rittinghouse was illegally using the firearm because he was 17 years old, and he could only open carry if he was at least 18 years old.

This is the only catch in the whole thing. Does the fact that he was not old enough to open carry in Wisconsin, enough to invalidate his legal right to defend himself. I suspect that is exactly where the judgement will end up. However I did look at some other cases and illegally carrying a gun does not prevent you from being able to defend yourself although you can be charged with a lesser crime for breaking that specific law.

[Gaius Octavius]

Avoiding conflict in this case would be NOT going to places you know there will be riots. The fact of the matter is that Rittinghouse intentionally went to a riot and waited for someone to attack him so he could discharge his weapon at the assailant.

He also bragged about being a "vigilante." The last time I checked, vigilantism was illegal.

This was pre-meditated murder. He knew exactly what kind of situation he was putting himself in, and he waited for someone to attack him so he could have an excuse to use his weapon.

You cannot compare him to people that show up to protests. If you watch video footage of him, it's obvious that he was just waiting for something to happen. He was not there to protest. He was there to kill.

-------

I am glad you agree that he was illegally using the weapon under WI law. I see no conflict with the 2A by having this law, and I highly doubt that he could argue that the 2A allowed him to open carry the weapon as a minor.

If the 2A disallowed any sort of regulation/gun laws as you imply, then concealed carry laws would be unenforceable. The fact that they are enforceable means that these gun laws are constitutional.


Either way you look at it, even if he is not charged with first-degree murder, he is still a criminal because it's highly likely he will be prosecuted over illegal use of a weapon as a minor.

[SoulBiter]

Avoiding conflict in this case would be NOT going to places you know there will be riots. The fact of the matter is that Rittinghouse intentionally went to a riot and waited for someone to attack him so he could discharge his weapon at the assailant.

He also bragged about being a "vigilante." The last time I checked, vigilantism was illegal.

This was pre-meditated murder. He knew exactly what kind of situation he was putting himself in, and he waited for someone to attack him so he could have an excuse to use his weapon.

Your last paragraph above. Its like saying a stripper is asking to be raped when walking through a bad neighborhood wearing a revealing dress, after having worked up those men that came to see her. "She was asking for it all night."

And the rest of that prosecution falls apart when you see that he was running away from the conflict, not toward. A guy who was "asking for it" would not have done that. He had plenty of opportunity to "use his weapon" and tried to disengage multiple times.

You cannot compare him to people that show up to protests. If you watch video footage of him, it's obvious that he was just waiting for something to happen. He was not there to protest. He was there to kill.

Again your narrative falls apart the moment you see that he tried to disengage and run from the conflict. Your story falls apart here each and every time.

I am glad you agree that he was illegally using the weapon under WI law. I see no conflict with the 2A by having this law, and I highly doubt that he could argue that the 2A allowed him to open carry the weapon as a minor.

If the 2A disallowed any sort of regulation/gun laws as you imply, then concealed carry laws would be unenforceable. The fact that they are enforceable means that these gun laws are constitutional.


Either way you look at it, even if he is not charged with first-degree murder, he is still a criminal because it's highly likely he will be prosecuted over illegal use of a weapon as a minor.

I do agree. The law is what it is and he will face what they find him guilty of. But if its the last one, its no more criminal than someone who was driving a car without a licence. Misdemenor.