Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Malifice]

Incorrect.

There was evidence submitted in the trial that the mob chasing him were yelling "cranium him" and "get him".

Yeah, so no evidence anyone was trying to kill him.

I mean one of the guys KR shot had a firearm on him. He could have shot KR at any time if he wanted him dead.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

It's irrelevant to Rittenhouse's self defence claims. People are still going to talk about it. Rosenbaum being a convicted paedo is interesting/titillating/bizzaro

You are trying to ascribe relevance to it as a (misplaced) justification. I don't believe others have tried to use it as justification and I've asked you to show these "explicit justifications".

It's just interesting in the context of the people that certain posters affiliate themselves with.

 

[Malifice]

No, it's relavent to the balance on which we determine the situation that presented Rittenhouse.

No, it's not relevant.

KR was unaware of their backgrounds, and even if he was somehow magically aware, its still not relevant to his shooting of them.

 

[Malifice]

It's just interesting in the context of the people that certain posters affiliate themselves with.

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, so no evidence anyone was trying to kill him.

I mean one of the guys KR shot had a firearm on him. He could have shot KR at any time if he wanted him dead.

There is video of him attempting to do that.

Rittenhouse felt that his life was being threatened and witness testimony backed that up.

 

[Taylor]

No, it's not relevant.

KR was unaware of their backgrounds, and even if he was somehow magically aware, its still not relevant to his shooting of them.

The state of mind of the person who died is absolutely relevant when their actions are being judged, the assertion is that they caused the violence against them through their behavior. The video backs up that assertion and the history of the person does too.

The reason they didn't want his history brought up is because it would prejudice the jury against him before anything else was heard.

 

[Malifice]

The state of mind of the person who died is absolutely relevant when their actions are being judged

No, its not, and the victims actions are not being judged.

KR is being judged. Not the victims.

 

[Malifice]

There is video of him attempting to do that.

No there ****ing is not.

There is no evidence of anyone trying to kill anyone other than KR.

 

[Taylor]

No, its not, and the victims actions are not being judged.

KR is being judged. Not the victims.

Rosenbaum's actions are the entire basis of the case. His state of mind is entirely relevant to judge how he behaved. He was not thinking rationally. Making a case that a rational person wouldn't chase someone with a rifle doesn't apply when the person chasing and attempting to disarm someone (for no reason at this point) is not rational.

It also explains why someone would decide that the person putting out the fires he started needed to be relieved of their firearm, and why someone in possession of one needed to be acting with extreme force to prevent then gaining possession of it.

Again, he was just released from a mental hospital. He had tried to kill himself. He is on video yelling "SHOOT ME N.." The man was not thinking rationally.

 

[Taylor]

No there ******* is not.

There is no evidence of anyone trying to kill anyone other than KR.

Striking someone in the head with an object is an attempt to do bodily harm.

Pointing the gun at the person's head should be taken as an attempt on their life in that circumstance and for you to suggest otherwise shows your own mind not thinking rationally about it.

Being chased after saying you're going to the police, when you're going to towards the police AND went there as you said you would, such that when you fall you are set upon immediately and assaulted including having a gun pointed at your head should be seen by anyone to be a mob out for revenge.

Especially when you've heard a gunshot behind you.

 

[Malifice]

Rosenbaum's actions are the entire basis of the case.

Stop spreading these lies. Rittenhouses actions are the entire basis of the case.

There is no evidence so far that the backgrounds of the three victims — Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz — had anything to do with the clashes that led to the deaths of Huber and Rosenbaum and the wounding of Grosskreutz.

They are the victims of a shooting, and as far as we can tell their past legal records have no bearing on them being shot during a protest.

If more facts emerge that show their backgrounds are relevant to what happened that night in Kenosha, we would revisit our decision. For instance, if there is evidence that any of the victims’ backgrounds could have affected their interactions with Rittenhouse, or if he knew anything about them before the shooting.

What’s True and False About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Alleged Victims | Snopes.com

 

[Malifice]

Striking someone in the head with an object is an attempt to do bodily harm.

Agreed, but there is no evidence he was trying to kill KR. None, zip, nada.

The prosecution or defence havent argued otherwise.

 

[Taylor]

Stop spreading these lies.



What’s True and False About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Alleged Victims | Snopes.com

Rittenhouses actions are the entire basis of the case.

I'm not interested in a link.

Address what I said. You disagree that his mental health contributed to his behavior that night?

 

[Taylor]

Agreed, but there is no evidence he was trying to kill KR. None, zip, nada.

The prosecution or defence havent argued otherwise.

Is your position that lethal force is only warranted in self defense when you are going to be killed otherwise?

AND that you should be able to tell the difference

 

[Taylor]

You're deliberately obtuse if you think that being chased by a mob with gunshots heard behind you, when you are set upon immediately when you fall down and struck with objects, that you should not feel like your life is in danger.

 

[Malifice]

I'm not interested in a link.

If you're not going to debate in good faith, then perhaps you should consider sitting this one out.

You disagree that his mental health contributed to his behavior that night?

No, I do not agree that the evidence presented at trial shows this, and even if it did, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL ISSUES AT THE TRIAL.

Do you understand?

 

[Taylor]

If you're not going to debate in good faith, then perhaps you should consider sitting this one out.

You address nothing of what I said and accuse me of not being in good faith? Preemptive strike much.

No, I do not agree that the evidence presented at trial shows this, and even if it did, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL ISSUES AT THE TRIAL.

Do you understand?

It is relevant because it supports Rittenhouse's state of mind being that his life was in danger. It's pertinent to his self defense position. He was acting irrationally, that's beyond doubt, it's on video. Speaking to this behavior is the history just in the hours before that he was in a mental hospital. We have an idea of the state of mind of the man, he was arguably still suicidal and provoked the confrontation with Rittenhouse.

We can't talk about him being still suicidal because they didn't want to talk about him being a pedophile, which is the reason why.

 

[Malifice]

Is your position that lethal force is only warranted in self defense when you are going to be killed otherwise?

No. Im of the view that lethal force is warranted in self defence when you reasonably fear for your life or you're about to be seriously harmed, and there is no other option reasonably open to you other than that lethal force.

In this case, that threshold is likely met. An angry mob was surrounding him, the streets were ablaze, the mood was heightened and they were grabbing his gun. It's entirely reasonable that he feared death or serious harm at that point.

The criminal background or mental health of the victims (which KR knew NOTHING about) is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is KR's state of mind, and as to whether it was reasonable or not.

And in my view, it was.

 

[Malifice]

It is relevant because it supports Rittenhouse's state of mind being that his life was in danger.

No, it doesnt! Someones mental health (even if SOMEHOW it could be proved that KR was somehow aware of the mental health issues of someone he had just met, and that's all but impossible to do) is not reason to warrant a higher level of prejudice or reduced threshold for shooting them.

If the evidence is that one of his victims was acting a certain way (extremely agressive or erratic) we could talk, but there is no evidence of any particularly erratic behavior by any of the three victims, sane crazy or otherwise.

 

[Taylor]

No. Im of the view that lethal force is warranted in self defence when you reasonably fear for your life or you're about to be seriously harmed, and there is no other option reasonably open to you other than that lethal force.

In this case, that threshold is likely met. An angry mob was surrounding him, the streets were ablaze, the mood was heightened and they were grabbing his gun. It's entirely reasonable that he feared death or serious harm at that point.

The criminal background or mental health of the victims (which KR knew NOTHING about) is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is KR's state of mind, and as to whether it was reasonable or not.

And in my view, it was.

I respectfully disagree about the relevance, because I believe it speaks both to the motivation for Rosenbaum being on the street that night and to his own state of mind regarding his self - leading him to initiate a confrontation as the aggressor which triggered the entire string of events.

 

[Malifice]

This is the madness that the USA now faces.

A person can be shot by a mass shooter, while trying to disarm the shooter, and the shooter can claim self defence as long as he reasonably believed the person grabbing his gun was going to use it on him.

 

[Taylor]

No, it doesnt! Someones mental health (even if SOMEHOW it could be proved that KR was somehow aware of the mental health issues of someone he had just met, and that's all but impossible to do) is not reason to warrant a higher level of prejudice or reduced threshold for shooting them.

If the evidence is that one of his victims was acting a certain way (extremely agressive or erratic) we could talk, but there is no evidence of any particularly erratic behavior by any of the three victims, sane crazy or otherwise.

I see where we are in disagreement.

My reason for beveling it relevant is because I am making the argument that Rosenbaum, due to his mental state, initiated the confrontation which from Rittenhouse's side would have been seen as highly volatile and highly irrational.

 

[Malifice]

I respectfully disagree about the relevance

Well you can disagree all you want, but you're wrong.

How on earth is the mental health of the victim (which was unknown to KR at the time of the shooting) in any way relevant?

 

[Malifice]

My reason for beveling it relevant is because I am making the argument that Rosenbaum, due to his mental state, initiated the confrontation which from Rittenhouse's side would have been seen as highly volatile and highly irrational.

Which is irrelvant to the case!

Rosenbaum could have been initiating the confrontation on the flip of a coin, for shits and giggles, to impress his girlfriend, to kill his 20th victim that day, because he genuinely thought KR was a mass shooter, or because he's just a guy that likes confrontations for all it matters.

It. Does. Not. Legally. Matter.

Understand?

 

[Taylor]

This is the madness that the USA now faces.

A person can be shot by a mass shooter, while trying to disarm the shooter, and the shooter can claim self defence as long as he reasonably believed the person grabbing his gun was going to use it on him.

Fact Check False.

How can he be a mass shooter being disarmed when the person was there for days without firing the gun until the attempt to disarm them for being a mass shooter, who still doesn't qualify as a mass shooter even after the three people were shot?