Kyle Rittenhouse's mother

submitted by ImPiqued1111111 from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

I think the premise of your discussion, that the shootings were "perpetrated" by Rittenhouse, is not quite accurate.

I've spent a lot of time reviewing the Rittenhouse footage and reading the relevant laws, with findings detailed in this comment, and what it seems like so far is his actions were reasonable self-defense.

Specifically, Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry mob, one of whom had just pulled out a gun and fired it into the air. To Rittenhouse, this would be indistinguishable from one of the mob actually shooting at him. When you're being chased by an angry armed mob that isn't breaking off despite your attempts to flee, at that point it's reasonable to believe you are going to be gravely injured or killed, and the only way to prevent it is to shoot back.

The only things that could undermine his self-defense claim would be:

1) If the prosecution could show Rittenhouse did something to provoke the mob to attack him. I haven't found footage of what happened that caused the mob to start chasing Rittenhouse, so I can't say for sure that he didn't do something that would reasonably provoke them here he could use that as an excuse to shoot them.

However, based on some other information I would guess not. Specifically, the people chasing him that he shot all had notable criminal records (one was a convicted sex offender, another had been convicted on at least 2 separate counts of (serious) domestic abuse that included strangulation and false imprisonment, and the 3rd had been charged with felony burglary and a few other crimes, and at least one of them looked really agitated already when filmed earlier in the night confronting the militia Rittenhouse was a part of. It seems more likely that they were just aggressive men that started chasing him because he was separated from the group or something along those lines.

It could turn out I'm entirely wrong and Rittenhouse did do something to reasonably provoke them. Under Wisconsin state law, since he was fleeing he would have regained the privilege of self-defense, unless it can be shown that he provoked them with the intention of creating the situation where he could legally use lethal force.

2) The less likely reason his self-defense claim could be undermined is if the prosecution can convince a jury that either his belief that he was under the threat of serious bodily harm/death wasn't reasonable under the circumstances, or that his belief that lethal force was reasonably necessary to prevent the harm wasn't reasonable.

I don't see this one being the way they get him, because Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry mob, and right before the first shooting one of his pursuers pulled out a gun and fired it into the air, which to Rittenhouse wouldn't be distinguishable from being fired at.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

I read today that the first man he killed was shot in the back.

Also, I'm not really giving the benefit of the doubt that a man ideologically opposed to the protests showed up there with an assault weapon. Was he really there not looking to start some shit?

Lastly, I agree that the men who were shot were trash for the reasons you mentioned, but Rittenhouse had no way of knowing that about them.

All of that said, as I mentioned, my take on what actually took place isn't based on a detailed understanding. The point I'm getting at is the volume of blame directed at the mother.

[–]FediNetizen 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read today that the first man he killed was shot in the back.

Yes, as this is an emotionally charged incident, there are a lot of people on the internet spreading misinformation. The first man Rittenhouse shot (Rosenbaum, 36) had been chasing Rittenhouse, and was lunging at Rittenhouse when he was shot in the head. There's some decent-quality video of that here, where you can see Rittenhouse being chased and what's happening when he shoots, although if you have a weak stomach you should probably turn it off once the cameraman starts approaching Rosenbaum, as he does get close enough to where you can clearly see the head wound.

Rittenhouse fired four times in rapid succession, but it does look like Rosenbaum dropped from one of the first ones, so giving as much benefit of the doubt to your source it's possible he was shot "in the back" from one of the later rounds (you don't get a view of his back from the video after he's been shot), but it's not the "in the back" in the sense one would typically take that to mean.

Also, I'm not really giving the benefit of the doubt that a man ideologically opposed to the protests showed up there with an assault weapon. Was he really there not looking to start some shit?

While it was largely a protest, there was also a lot of looting and rioting going on at the time. Around the time Rittenhouse had showed up, about 20 buildings had been burned down, and many stores looted. Earlier in the day he had been cleaning graffiti off of a building. When he was chased down he was part of a militia group that was trying to protect a different building.

To be clear, what Rittenhouse did was still idiotic. He was a pudgy 5'3" 17-year-old that shouldn't have been part of that group.

If you want a more detailed rundown of what led to the shooting, I recommend this article. My one gripe is the author repeatedly claims Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle was illegal, but that claim is factually incorrect. The statute on minors possessing weapons makes specific exemptions for rifles and shotguns provided the minor is in compliance with other codes related to firearm possession. If Rittenhouse were 15 then the possession without a guardian present would have been illegal, but for those 16 and up it's legal. Even so, it's a good article overall.

[–]lefterfield 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

While it's true that Rittenhouse wouldn't know about the men's criminal records, the fact that they have records for violent offenses makes it more likely that they attacked without provocation. I believe that's what they were getting at, I don't know the details of the case myself.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I will say that it's fully depressing that the men on "both sides" are all violent males.

[–]Apricot_Ibex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, and what are the chances it would be four women doing that? Not at all impossible, but very unlikely in comparison.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it were four women it wouldn't make it any better.

[–]jelliknight 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well if we're judging people based on their prior actions, being a racist showing up to oppose a protest with a loaded gun you aren't legally allowed to carry is pretty fucking damning. Far more than any crime committed months or longer before the incident.

[–]BrokenEarth 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you have evidence that he was racist I would like to see it. Also he was able to legally own and carry the gun he brought to the protest. The only person in this incident with a loaded gun they weren't legally allowed to carry was the convicted felon with a pistol who was shot in the arm.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't find anything authoritative that confirms that Grosskreutz is really a felon. He was charged with felony burglary at some point, but there's no record of a felony conviction I can find, and charges get lowered during the court process all the time.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Um... I was only clarifying what someone else said about it, so maybe you want to respond to them instead? As it is, it sounds like previous protests had turned violent, which is the reason why they were bringing guns. I've said before that I don't think this kid should have been there, but the point of the criminal record of the people he shot is NOT "they were bad, they deserved it", but that there is a GREATER CHANCE they took aggressive actions.

[–]jelliknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

the point of the criminal record of the people he shot is NOT "they were bad, they deserved it", but that there is a GREATER CHANCE they took aggressive actions.

And I'm disagreeing with you. One person committed a crime at some point in the past, the other showed up to THIS particular even with a weapon. The latter is the one more likely to be instigating.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have no idea how that follows.

[–]jelliknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

One persons actions are long past. The others in in relation to and preparation for the current event under discussion.

Say we're talking about a bar fight. One person once got into a fight 3 years ago in very different circumstances, the other arrived at the bar wearing brass knuckles. Which of those two is more likely to be looking for a fight?

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And I think you're deliberately changing the facts to condemn someone you've decided is guilty. Say we're talking about two people. One has a proven history of violent assault. The other brings the most popular self-defense weapon with him to a situation with the potential to turn violent, given past incidents. The latter guy repeatedly tries to escape from the one with the history of violent assault, but is pursued and the violent-history person attempts to take his weapon away. We don't really need to know which of them initially came looking for a fight or who started the verbal argument - one was pursuing, one was chasing. The pursuer was looking for a fight. The ONLY relevance his history has on it is to provide CONTEXT for a situation that was already caused by him. His actions.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol being a 'racist' (hearsay - proof?) and 'showing up' to be a volunteer field medic at a violent riot after being asked is worse than being a repeat offender pedophile, rapist and wife beater? Maybe you shouldn't be on a feminist forum if you think this.

[–]zephyranthes 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't there to start shit. The looters were there to start shit. He was there to do his day job, then to clean looter graffiti, then to guard a business from looters.

After going to check on another business, he was then barred by cops from returning to safety and got attacked by a mob.

He killed one attacker, immediately called the cops to report the killing and went to them to surrender.

On the way to the cops, he got attacked by the mob again and thrown to the ground. He missed one attacker and killed another. A third one faked a surrender ("hands up don't shoot"), then drew a gun, at which point Kyle shot and wounded him in the arm with the gun. Kyle then stood up and walked on toward the cops.

The cops waved him on, so he went (presumably by car, it'd be a long walk) to his hometown just across the border and surrendered there.

The wounded man then allegedly regretted not murdering Kyle.

All three men are white and have lengthy rap sheets with sexual assaults, child rape, stalking, repeat domestic violence, strangulation, etc. Kyle only has a speeding violation.

Looters online are fantasizing about raping Kyle in jail and asking about his cell number.

Personally, I'm currently trying for a child and I was worried about how I'm going to raise a son if I end up having one. Now I know.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why is it only bad for Rittenhouse to show up with an "assault weapon"? You seem to have forgotten to address that two of the three justice recipients were also armed.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If you can't discern the difference between a white supremacist showing up to a BLM protest with a military style assault rifle and one of the three victims having a hangun, I don't know what to tell you.

[–]OrneryStruggle 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

source on him being a white supremacist?

not everyone here will be anti-gun. on the contrary many radical feminists are pro-gun. the child clearly saved his own life that day because he had a gun, instead of getting killed by misogynistic felons.

[–]FediNetizen 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see a lot of parallels between your stubborn refusal to consider that you may be misinformed about the reality of the situation, and the stubborn refusal other lefties have with regards to the whole trans situation.

[–]OrneryStruggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He was shot at the back as he fell - being shot in the front and side of his body first. The fatal bullet (and likely first bullet) was to the front of his groin. It shattered his pelvis and he bled out, according to the last coroner's report I saw. There are eyewitnesses including a reporter who was in the line of fire saying kyle only shot the attacker after he was cornered and the pedophile made not one but TWO attempts to grab his gun. There is no way a shot in the back was the first shot.

He showed up to a protest to act as a field medic, and had a weapon to protect himself since the national guard stood down and police were not preventing local buildings from being torched. He gave an interview maybe 5 minutes before the shooting saying so, in fact.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wait, was there not a headshot? I watched the video, it even looked like a headshot to me.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He did shoot the guy "in the head" first but missed/grazed him, which was probably the shot that flew past the reporter. The fatal shot which I think dropped him was the groin shot, then the shot in the back must have been after he started falling as you can see he rotates as he falls.

[–]goobandit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The article fedinetizen posted says that his mom drove him to the protests. If that’s true and is the reason being cited, it makes more sense

[–]Shesstealthy 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I just don't understand how me shooting and killing a stranger who conveniently turned out to be a bad guy would make it OK.

[–]FediNetizen 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't make the shooting more justifiable. I brought that up to explain why, since I don't have direct footage of what started the pursuit and can only speculate, I was leaning towards Rittenhouse not having done anything that would have reasonably provoked them to go after him like that. I was pointing out that these were all guys with criminal histories that probably don't have the same kind of restraint that average people have.

[–]Shesstealthy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Walking round with a gun is fairly provoking.

[–]OrneryStruggle 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

no it's not. it's legal and he was doing it to protect himself while he rendered medical aid to protesters.

[–]Daraincork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me neither. Incredible contortions on display here. Reminiscent of the trans lobby in fact.

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it was self defense, which in many people's books makes it ok.

[–]OrneryStruggle 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) If the prosecution could show Rittenhouse did something to provoke the mob to attack him. I haven't found footage of what happened that caused the mob to start chasing Rittenhouse, so I can't say for sure that he didn't do something that would reasonably provoke them here he could use that as an excuse to shoot them.

^ I have the answer to your question here. He brought a fire extinguisher to a fire they were trying to set at a gas station, and after the fire was put out the first attacker (pedophile in the red/orange shirt) became outraged and started shouting racist slurs and telling people to shoot him. he seems to have picked kyle out of the crowd later and gone after him specifically, but at first he indiscriminately attacks various members of the militia who put out the fire. that's the video where he's confronting the militia - it was moments after the fire he was trying to set was put out. he starts chasing kyle and grabbing his gun apparently immediately afterward.