Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t think someone who saw a person shoot another person to death right in front of him thought the trigger man was an “active shooter”?



I mean… Rittenhouse shot someone right in front of Grosskreutz, and you can hear on video people saying “shooter” and “that guy killed someone.” Those are pretty basic facts. So, what did Grosskreutz think, then?

Shooting a person in self defense then running to the police to turn yourself in would not meet any reasonable definition of active shooter.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Ok. I haven’t been following the trial, but have tried to keep up reading this thread. So Kyle R. says he went to the riot to try and protect property. Did he actually protect any property?

All the talk about him taking a gun there, putting himself in danger, how is that different from the actual people rioting? Did they not put themselves in danger? And all the other people with guns?

Why are we picking on the guy who actually wanted the riots to stop?

If Rittenhouse were dead we’d probably talking about the guy who shot him instead.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

Grosskreutz did not witness Kyle shooting someone to death right in from of him. Their first interaction was sometime after the 1st shooting when Kyle was halfway down the street running towards the police lines. Gaige even asks Kyle what he did and Kyle told him in passing he shot someone and was going to the police. Despite that fleeting interaction, it only took Gaige about 10 seconds of listening to the bloodthirsty mob to decide he was going to try to shoot Kyle and caught a bullet of his own as a result.

It was all caught on Grosskreut's POV livestream.

They actually first crossed paths even before that, and then again as Kyle was running away. Huber was killed right in front of him.

And there’s no evidence that Grosskreutz followed Kyle with the sole purpose of making an attempt to shoot him, so anyone suggesting that is just being dumb on purpose. Next.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Shooting a person in self defense then running to the police to turn yourself in would not meet any reasonable definition of active shooter.

Irrelevant, Grosskreutz wouldn’t have known anything about it being self defence at the time, only the impression that he was an active shooter, further confirmed by the killing of Huber right in front of him.

Again, what do you believe his intentions were? You’re not going with some baseless nonsense too, are you? You’re supposed to be about the facts here.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Irrelevant, Grosskreutz wouldn’t have known anything about it being self defence at the time, only the impression that he was an active shooter, further confirmed by the killing of Huber right in front of him.

Of course it's relevant if you are trying to draw some equivalency between KR actions and GG actions. But there is no equivalency.

KR had the privilege of self defense in his situation.

GG did not have the privilege of self defense in his (3rd party other otherwise).

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Rittenhouse walked into a dangerous situation. His choice.

So did the child rapist and the domestic abuser. Their choice.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course it's relevant if you are trying to draw some equivalency between KR actions and GG actions. But there is no equivalency.

KR had the privilege of self defense in his situation.

GG did not have the privilege of self defense in his (3rd party other otherwise).

Totally reasonable to claim self-defense because a person may have touched a gun, but a person with an actual gun who has already confirmed to have shot two people, who the crowd has labelled as an active shooter, nope no way to claim self-defense there.

It's just a ridiculous argument to make even if you want to fanboy over Rittenhouse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course it's relevant if you are trying to draw some equivalency between KR actions and GG actions. But there is no equivalency.

KR had the privilege of self defense in his situation.

GG did not have the privilege of self defense in his (3rd party other otherwise).

Something Grosskreutz could not possibly have been aware of could not have informed his understanding of the situation, so it’s irrelevant. Try again.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course it's relevant if you are trying to draw some equivalency between KR actions and GG actions. But there is no equivalency.

KR had the privilege of self defense in his situation.

GG did not have the privilege of self defense in his (3rd party other otherwise).

Do you not think Grosskreutz would have been completely justified in shooting Rittenhouse to prevent further bloodshed based on the fact that he just shot and killed 2 people? Wouldn’t you want someone to step in and stop an active shooter?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Do you not think Grosskreutz would have been completely justified in shooting Rittenhouse to prevent further bloodshed based on the fact that he just shot and killed 2 people? Wouldn’t you want someone to step in and stop an active shooter?

He wasn't an "active shooter", by any reasonable definition of the term.

And no, GG would not have been justified.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

He wasn't an "active shooter", by any reasonable definition of the term.

And no, GG would not have been justified.

It's not about whether Rittenhouse met the reasonable definition of the term. It's whether it was reasonable to believe he was an active shooter. Having confirmed he shot one person prior, heard the crowd calling him an active shooter, and then saw him kill another, yes it's most definitely reasonable for someone to believe he was an active shooter. It's completely asinine to argue differently.

Like Rittenhouse, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone trying to harm Rittenhouse was doing so out of malice and not to prevent an active shooter situation. They would not even have a little chance when the crowd is all yelling about him being an active shooter.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

It's not about whether Rittenhouse met the reasonable definition of the term. It's whether it was reasonable to believe he was an active shooter. Having confirmed he shot one person prior, heard the crowd calling him an active shooter, and then saw him kill another, yes it's most definitely reasonable for someone to believe he was an active shooter. It's completely asinine to argue differently.

Like Rittenhouse, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone trying to harm Rittenhouse was doing so out of malice and not to prevent an active shooter situation. They would not even have a little chance when the crowd is all yelling about him being an active shooter.

If you think all you need to justify killing someone is a crowd yelling "active shooter", you're wrong.

There was plenty of evidence showing that KR was simply defending himself and was not posing an immediate threat of grievous bodily harm to anyone else. Ergo the "reasonable" wording in the self defense statute would be difficult to meet and there would be no self defense privilege available to GG.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If you think all you need to justify killing someone is a crowd yelling "active shooter", you're wrong.

Actually that's getting pretty close to justify killing someone.

If on April 1 a bunch of high school students pranked a security guard into believing a kid was a school shooter with fake blood, playing dead, and the kid came out with a realistic looking toy hand gun as the students screamed, he would be justified in shooting him - because he reasonably believed to be an active shooter thanks to the "crowd."

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There was plenty of evidence showing that KR was simply defending himself and was not posing an immediate threat of grievous bodily harm to anyone else. Ergo the "reasonable" wording in the self defense statute would be difficult to meet and there would be no self defense privilege available to GG.

Again, it's not about Rittenhouse. I don't know why you can't grasp this for someone who has so clearly pretended to follow the trial and pretend to know the law. It's about what his would-be-assailant believed. Was it reasonable to believe that after hearing several shots fired, the crowd labelling him an active shooter and seeing him shoot and kill someone that he was? ####ing rights anyone would be able to claim they reasonably believed him to be.

It's the very reason that Rittenhouse got off on his attempted murder. Because he reasonably believed the person was about to shoot him, he did not need to mind-read to know the true intention of Grosskreutz. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was NOT acting in self-defense. It's not the other way around.

A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

There's the word in bold for you.

[OptimalTates]

It's also why police, and even non-police officers, have "got away" with killing people with toy guns. You need to prove they did not believe it was real, not the other way around.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Actually that's getting pretty close to justify killing someone.

If on April 1 a bunch of high school students pranked a security guard into believing a kid was a school shooter with fake blood, playing dead, and the kid came out with a realistic looking toy hand gun as the students screamed, he would be justified in shooting him - because he reasonably believed to be an active shooter thanks to the "crowd."



Again, it's not about Rittenhouse. I don't know why you can't grasp this for someone who has so clearly pretended to follow the trial and pretend to know the law. It's about what his would-be-assailant believed. Was it reasonable to believe that after hearing several shots fired, the crowd labelling him an active shooter and seeing him shoot and kill someone that he was? ####ing rights anyone would be able to claim they reasonably believed him to be.

It's the very reason that Rittenhouse got off on his attempted murder. Because he reasonably believed the person was about to shoot him, he did not need to mind-read to know the true intention of Grosskreutz. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was NOT acting in self-defense. It's not the other way around.



There's the word in bold for you.

Good luck winning that case.

The prosecution would have plenty of video and plenty of witnesses showing KR operating specifically in self defense, and was attempting to retreat to the police. In fact, he TOLD Grosskreutz that he was trying to get to the police. (You can't claim self defense against a person who is retreating). He was posing no immediate threat to anyone after the Huber shooting.

And yet GG is going to run up, shoot him, and claim self defense for a 3rd party potential victim that doesn't exist.

And the justiciation? "I heard the mob yelling about an active shooter."

The notion is comical.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Good luck winning that case.

The prosecution would have plenty of video and plenty of witnesses showing KR operating specifically in self defense, and was attempting to retreat to the police. In fact, he TOLD Grosskreutz that he was trying to get to the police. (You can't claim self defense against a person who is retreating). He was posing no immediate threat to anyone after the Huber shooting.

And yet GG is going to run up, shoot him, and claim self defense for a 3rd party potential victim that doesn't exist.

And the justiciation? "I heard the mob yelling about an active shooter."

The notion is comical.

Learning this late in the game that BoLevi doesn’t even know the timeline of the shootings is kind of hilarious.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Good luck winning that case.

The prosecution would have plenty of video and plenty of witnesses showing KR operating specifically in self defense, and was attempting to retreat to the police. In fact, he TOLD Grosskreutz that he was trying to get to the police. (You can't claim self defense against a person who is retreating). He was posing no immediate threat to anyone after the Huber shooting.

And yet GG is going to run up, shoot him, and claim self defense for a 3rd party potential victim that doesn't exist.

And the justiciation? "I heard the mob yelling about an active shooter."

The notion is comical.

Are you freaking kidding?? The guy just shot and killed 2 people. What do you think an active shooter would say, “oh snap! you got me!”?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Learning this late in the game that BoLevi doesn’t even know the timeline of the shootings is kind of hilarious.

What do you think the order was?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Are you freaking kidding?? The guy just shot and killed 2 people. What do you think an active shooter would say, “oh snap! you got me!”?

The evidence is clear that it was self defense and that he was not an active shooter. Which is why he was acquitted. And yet you think that GG would be successful claiming self defense after only hearing a mob yell active shooter?

as I said, good luck with that defense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What do you think the order was?

You stated Rittenhouse wasn’t a threat after he shot Huber, so it was reasonable to assume he was a threat while he was shooting Huber?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You stated Rittenhouse wasn’t a threat after he shot Huber, so it was reasonable to assume he was a threat while he was shooting Huber?

Well he was certainly a threat to Huber once he started swinging a skateboard at him.