Comments by "wily wascal" (@wilywascal2024) on "Kyle Rittenhouse breaks down on stand during trial" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@northmuond ~ Rittenhouse was underage, traveled from out-of-state to break the curfew that had been imposed, and unlawfully carrying an assault rifle. He went looking for trouble.
And if you say, "what right did the rioters have to be there," then why are all the Reich-wing morons trying to make Ashleigh Babbitt a martyr, calling for the police officer who shot her to be charged with murder? Over 140 police were seriously injured when they were brutally attacked on January 6 by rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and "Kill Nancy Pelosi"...yet only one person was shot, and that was to protect high elected officials from imminent harm as domestic terrorists were breaking and entering into the House Chamber. The police were there at the Nation's Capitol acting in their lawful capacity.
In contrast, Rittenhouse was not seriously injured, was not in Kenosha acting in any lawful capacity, was not a highly trained law enforcement officer, but he ended up shooting three people. After Rittenhouse shot his first victim, he did not seek to help the victim with medical aid, did not call 911 as he was asked to do; instead he fled the scene of the crime as an active shooter, calling a friend to tell them he had just shot someone. As I said, in my book, taken altogether, it doesn't add up to self-defense. Rittenhouse was a trigger-happy kid fancying himself to be a hero who lacked the maturity to make sound judgments----which is exactly why there are laws disallowing minors from carrying assault weapons around in public.
1
-
@northmuond ~ Rittenhouse didn't travel across state lines with the gun; he picked up at his father's house in Wisconsin where it was stored. His father was away and said he had inadvertently left the gun safe unlocked, which was how he was able to access it. His house in Illinois was about 30 miles from Kenosha. The point was that he went out of state looking for trouble. Another separate point was that it was illegal in both Illinois and Wisconsin for him to be walking around carrying an assault rifle, regardless of crossing any state line.
And if he hadn't gone looking for trouble, Rittenhouse would still be alive and not be facing multiple homicide and criminal charges. Something which completely negates your argument on that point, because any reasonable person would choose to avoid the hassle, expense, disruption, notoriety, stress, anxiety, arrest, trial, and risk of possible prison time.
Rittenhouse was committing a crime because he was a minor in illegal possession of a deadly assault rifle, so a defense that he was there to protect property and uphold the law is laughable. If a bank robber shoots a security guard trying to stop him in commission of a crime, he doesn't get to claim self defense.
To my view, if Rittenhouse isn't convicted, it would be a travesty of justice. I don't think Rittenhouse is necessarily a bad person, but he was young, insecure, and stupid, and he made some very poor decisions because of that, resulting in him killing two people and seriously injuring another. There's good reasons why the state doesn't allow minors to go parading around with assault rifles.
Nor am I close-minded about this case, either. I've stated my reasons for thinking the way I do and, so far, neither you or anyone else has offered a convincing case why I should think otherwise. And that isn't confined to just comments or replies on social media, but includes differing perspectives obtained from a variety of sources. To me, consideration extends beyond just Rittenhouse and justice for his victims, to the ramifications that would result from not finding him guilty. For me, it isn't about the Second Amendment, or being for or against BLM and racial justice, or political affiliation. It's about what kind of society we wish to live in.
1
-
@northmuond ~ Not looking for trouble? That's a joke! Here is what Kyle is recorded saying shortly before that fateful night:
In a published 29-second video clip taken days before the fatal shootings last August Rittenhouse can be heard saying he wished he could shoot people, whom he believed to be looters, fleeing a nearby CVS store. “Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse is heard saying.
But even if that evidence right from the horse's mouth is ignored, the fact is that Rittenhouse responded to an armed militia group's online call for armed vigilantes to go to Kenosha, in what he CLEARLY KNEW was a very volatile situation there. Rittenhouse choosing to illegally arm himself with a deadly assault rifle is further proof that he CLEARLY KNEW the situation was very volatile. If that's not looking for trouble, then your understanding of the phrase is tortuously skewed. If my son had done something similar as a minor, even if he didn't shoot anyone, I would ask him in no uncertain terms why he went looking for trouble and what the hell was he thinking.
Witnesses said that it was not Rittenhouse who put out the dumpster fire, but another one of the armed militia men. Other witnesses said that at one point they saw Rittenhouse with a fire extinguisher walking down the sidewalk, but not using it on the trash barrel fires he was passing by. Witnesses also said that it was not Rosenbaum that started the dumpster fire, but a protestor.
You repeatedly try to demonize the victim Rosenbaum by bringing up his criminal record, which is irrelevant. That Rosenbaum was just released from a psychiatric hospital could possibly be relevant, though. However, one of the armed militia men who was there at the gas station testified in court that he didn't see Rosenbaum as any serious threat. You don't try to demonize Rittenhouse for hitting a minor girl earlier in the year, which is also irrelevant. You are either unaware or uncaring of the double standards and bias you apply to this case.
You're using basically the same argument already rebutted about Kyle being there, asking the hypothetical, what if he didn't have a gun? If he wasn't there, three people wouldn't have been shot, and Rittenhouse would be facing a slew of criminal charges and possible prison time, regardless of any "right" he had to be there. Moreover, you choose to conveniently ignore that Rittenhouse didn't have any "right" to be there after curfew and illegally armed with an AR-15.
And, no, it can't automatically be assumed that he would have been beaten half to death, either. The truth is that no one can know for certain what might have happened had he not had a gun. According to witnesses, even before the fracas started with Rosenbaum, a number of protesters were complaining that Rittenhouse and others at the gas station were pointing their weapons at them. According to studies, people are provoked by other people simply carrying loaded weapons around them in public places outside of where they would traditionally be used, e.g., shooting ranges, hunting grounds. So, how much did Rittenhouse having that gun contribute to initiating a confrontation? We'll never know for sure, but it may have well been a significant or at least contributing factor, especially if he was pointing it at people who had not yet posed any personal threat to him.
1
-
@northmuond ~ You're ignoring the fact that after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum he fled the scene of the crime. Rittenhouse posed as an EMT, even though he only had training to be a lifeguard, which is much different. But he still had medical supplies on him, and after he shot Rosenbaum, he could have tried to help save the life of the victim he shot. Nobody was chasing Rittenhouse at that point, no one was threatening him. A reporter there did try to help Rosenbaum, and he asked Rittenhouse to call 911. But he fled, instead calling his friend to tell him he just shot someone.
At that point, he was an active shooter fleeing the scene of the crime, and people tried to stop him. The paramedic he later shot in the biceps (who really was an EMT) who was among those trying to stop Rittenhouse could have shot him, but he didn't. People weren't trying to beat him up and lynch him, they were trying to detain and disarm Rittenhouse because he was an armed active shooter.
Instead of fleeing the scene of the crime, Rittenhouse should have claimed self defense, stayed with the victim he first shot, trying to provide medical assistance, and called 911. Soon, the cops and ambulances would have been there. I also have to wonder why Rittenhouse didn't stay with the group of armed militia he was with, why he allowed himself to be separated from them. Rosenbaum couldn't have harmed Rittenhouse if he was with that group, there was safety in numbers.
Thing is, Rittenhouse responded to an online call of a vigilante group to go to Kenosha because of the social unrest there. A minor had no business arming himself with an AR-15 and going there to act as a vigilante, posing as an EMT, trying to play the hero. In view of everything that transpired, what it points to is Rittenhouse's immaturity. Inserting an minor armed with a deadly weapon acting as a vigilante into a very volatile situation is like an accident waiting to happen, a powder keg ready to blow.
Consider that on January 6, when thousands of people attacked the nation's Capitol in an act of domestic terrorism and insurrection, 140 police were seriously injured in the space of just a few hours, and yet not one of those rioting were shot in self defense by the police. Only Ashli Babbitt was shot ONE TIME, but that was done only to protect members of Congress still present in the House chamber that Babbitt was illegally breaking into and trying to enter. Rittenhouse was not seriously injured, yet he fired at least eight rounds, hitting three people, killing two and seriously injuring another, claiming self defense. Do you see the incongruity, do you see the problem here?
Consider also that the paramedic that Rittenhouse shot and injured could have shot Rittenhouse first, but didn't. Why? Because, as he testified, he didn't want to harm Rittenhouse. But what if he had shot first? Wouldn't he have been able to claim self defense? Wouldn't his claim to self defense have been more legitimate? After all, Rittenhouse had just shot someone else trying to stop and detain an active shooter, and was pointing the gun at him. So, in self defense supposed to be a matter of whomever shoots first is the "winner" that escapes accountability and the other person the "loser" who becomes the victim that gets the blame, that get injured or dies? Do you see the incongruity, do you see the problem here?
1
-
@northmuond ~ The video clip was published by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which is Wisconsin's largest and most reputable newspaper. The newspaper tends to lean slightly to the right. You can hear Kyle's voice on it, and it matches up with events that occurred at the time. I know it doesn't fit the narrative you wish to believe, but it is what it is, and it demonstrates Rittenhouse's state of mind at the time.
Yeah, bad stuff happens everywhere all the time, so let's everyone get out our guns and go march off to act as vigilantes to help the Uighers in China, or Ted Bundy scam the federal government in Utah, or whatever cause celebre that is trending at any given moment. Because that's the kind of justice system we want in America, right? There's very good reasons why we have the police and national guard, and why armed militia groups are outlawed in all 50 states. Looting and burning is bad, but property is replaceable and human life is not. We don't go around shooting shoplifters, do we?
There is no "maybe" about it; Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. It wasn't ten minutes away, it was about 30 miles away, across a state line. Trying to downplay or diminish those things isn't going to convince me. Nor does using the wrongful actions of those looting, burning and vandalizing during social unrest as justification for a minor to wrongfully arm themselves with an assault rifle and travel out of state to act as a vigilante make a convincing argument. Two wrongs don't make a right, as I'm sure you're mother taught you. All it does is create more wrong, and that is precisely what happened.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers is sending in 500 National Guard troops to Kenosha, because an innocent verdict for Rittenhouse is likely to spark more social unrest. If that happens, do you think Rittenhouse's vigilantism will have helped matters, or just made them worse? Just the fact that the National Guard has to be sent in is not good; a consequence of Rittenhouse's looking for trouble is that he has only brewed up more trouble.
But that is merely one of the ramifications alluded to that could result, none of them good. What happens when those protesting social injustice all start walking around with assault weapons and body armor to protect themselves from the vigilantes? Do we really want to see Civil War playing out in our streets between protesters and self-appointed vigilantes, with innocent victims getting caught in the crossfire? Since January 6, should self-appointed armed vigilantes start showing up to Republican rallies, because they could start looting, vandalizing, defacing, defiling, terrorizing, and trying to kill people like they did at the Capitol? Do you see the incongruity, do you see the problem?
1
-
@northmuond ~ You're not actually responding to many of the points and arguments, you're just looking for new ways to attack. That's intellectually dishonest. Is that how you hope to convince me? If so, you will surely fail. Your use of sarcasm doesn't score you any points, either.
You're also fabricating things and resorting to hyperbole which is, again, intellectually dishonest. I've watched the video numerous times of Rittenhouse running away, and did not hear anyone yelling "Kill him." Someone did yell, "Get him," and
"he shot someone," though. But that's to be expected, because he was an active shooter running away from the scene of the crime. But even if someone had yelled that out, it doesn't mean that those trying to detain and disarm him because he was an active shooter intended to kill him, or that all those present would have allowed that to happen.
Nor was Rittenhouse "continuously struck in the head with a skateboard." WATCH THE VIDEO. After Rittenhouse shot at one person who jumped over him attempting to kick him, Huber then struck him a glancing blow on the back of his SHOULDER with the skateboard ONE TIME. It wasn't a hard blow, and it glanced off, because Rittenhouse had been moving, turning when the first guy tried to kick him. Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse turned on the ground and fired the shot that killed him.
And you're just rehashing many of the same arguments you've already made that had already been rebutted. For instance, it was already covered that Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of another man he shot. It was already covered that he did not offer his victim any medical assistance, nor did he call 911 when asked. It was already covered that Rittenhouse was considered an active shooter.
Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times, and the pathologist testified that the fatal shot in the back came when he was horizontal, already down. What, you think that after getting shot three times from an AR-15 assault rifle, one of the most lethal weapons, lying on the ground, Rosenbaum posed any kind of serious threat to Rittenhouse? That's not self defense, that's murder.
Grosskruetz has not been charged with having an illegal weapon. You want to use that against him, but then you want to use the excuse for Rittenhouse that the judge threw out the charge of him being a minor illegally carrying a deadly assault rifle. In fact, unlike Rittenhouse, Grosskruetz was an adult and an actual certified EMT. He was allowed to carry a weapon. The potential charge against him would have been carrying a concealed weapon, but it obviously wasn't being concealed when he was shot by Rittenhouse. Furthermore, Grosskruetz had his hands up, and only pointed his gun at Rittenhouse after he re-racked his AR-15 and pointed it at him. He could have shot him before putting his hands up or when pointing it at Rittenhouse, but testified that his objective wasn't to hurt Rittenhouse. He did not fire his weapon, but Rittenhouse certainly did.
Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the AR-15 in the trunk of his friend's car when he fled home after shooting three people, which was illegally purchased for him, and which according to state law here is illegal for minors to carry. That provision has traditionally been enforced here. Have never seen minors parading around any town in Wisconsin with firearms. It just isn't a thing. There is an exception for hunting, and minors over the age of 12 often hunt in Wisconsin, with certain restrictions. However, Rittenhouse wasn't hunting in the streets of Kenosha (unless it was humans), where it is illegal within the city limits, and he did not have any out-of-state permit to hunt in Wisconsin, either, which is required under law.
The judge in this case is clearly biased and/or corrupt, and the fix is in, so his ruling that goes against previous cases and court rulings is hardly surprising. They recently had interviewed Wisconsin defense lawyers about this law, and they said that there was no good defense against Rittenhouse's violation of the law:
In Wisconsin, lawful gun owners can generally open carry without a permit. But a person must be 18 or older to carry a “dangerous weapon.” Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.
Rittenhouse’s attorneys previously argued he was protected under a vague state law that allows younger children to carry rifles for hunting, but he was charged with underaged unlawful firearms possession anyway. Criminal defense attorneys who specialize in Wisconsin firearm law say it will be hard for the defense to beat that back at trial.
“There are a variety of defenses to this charge; none of them are great or even rise to the level of good,” said Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee-based criminal defense attorney.
If convicted of the misdemeanor gun charge, the maximum penalty is up to nine months in jail or a $10,000 fine.
Wisconsin Statute 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
1
-
1