What's your theory? I just figured he thought he was out of ammo or had a malfunction or something. Why did he pull his firearm while chasing him and for what reason if not to stop/kill him?

There are a number of differences, yes. But that doesn't seem to be the argument you were putting forward. What I read from you is that the judicial system's treatment of the two would be different, which is another argument altogether.

It sure doesn't seem like it's going to end well.

There's no way anyone could change the gun situation overnight; it has to happen incrementally. It was always my hope that it would, but events like this make me wonder.

I'm curious what's the plan for these weekend soldiers of fortune tough guys like KR is.
Like if they're protecting some random person's business and unarmed protestors start breaking the windows of that business and spray painting BLM, do they just start blasting? What's their plan? Can they just start shooting unarmed vandals legally?

Well they can just use the classic cop defense that they were scared. Right?

I didn't watch all of his testimony and I don't know. Certainly drawing his gun and chasing Rittenhouse means that Rittenhouse has a reasonable fear of death at that point, which is the most important fact on the Gaige claims.

Perhaps Gaige was chasing Rittenhouse to ensure he had health care.

Because someone quoted QP, I'll respond to one of his thoughtless points. Given that Gaige was chasing Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him, he's the aggressor here, not Rittenhouse. A Gaige self-defense claim if had shot first would be highly unlikely to succeed IMO.

Gaige refusing to disclose some of the video on his phone and suing Kenosha for $10M seem ludicrous to me. I haven't read his complaint, though, so my view on that point is definitely inchoate.

If he succeeds, imagine how many people he could give healthcare for life with $10m!

Oh, it's probably like 3.

I think the plan is pretty clear: have a presence with rifles to deter criminal activity. Most people will not attack a person or damage a building a person is standing in front of with a rifle - they just move on. His problem is he found that guy that doesn't care.

He got diced up in cross right off the bat. The lawyer quoted his police statement of, "Sometime during the incident, my Glock 27 that had a belt clip attached fell off my waist," and he confirmed that was true.

Then the lawyer asked him if that was a lie. He said it wasn't. He then asked, "You didn't take the Glock out of your back here and run with it?" and he said that he did. He then asked, "So it didn't fall off your waist; it was in your hand?" and he said that's correct. He then asked again if his statement to police was a lie, and he said his statement wasn't a lie.

And it got worse from there, climaxing at:

"When you were standing 3-5 feet from him, with your arms in the air, he never fired, right?"

"Correct."

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun pointed at him, that he fired, right?"

"Correct."

Here we go. This is how you derail a thread and make the entire politics forum unreadable w/ insane nonsense.

Kyle rittenhouse is an American hero!

Never meet your idols, folks.

I think many things can be true at once.

- I think a person like him could attend a rally like, and take a gun thinking he may need to protect himself and/or others.
- I think a person like him, in the emotions of the moment hearing 'active shooter' can reply by running towards the scene all hopped up on adrenaline while drawing his gun
- I think a person like him, then confronted with the 'active shooter' heavily armed can still rush in not really thinking exactly what he is going to do, but find pulling the trigger and just shooting the guy is not something he can do


I think that hesitation to shoot can happen subconsciously (as often does for a person confronted with his first ever human kill) and instead what often happens is a hope that they will just 'drop the gun' when confronted.

As you say, approaching a guy with an A/R like is foolish if you intent to actually shoot. You don't need to be in knife range and he could have shot multiple times on the approach.

So I don't think he rushed in thinking "I am going to kill this guy" but did rush in thinking "i am going to try and help stop this guy" and when presented with the reality of the situation he froze as he was never prepared mentally to shoot another human being.

Grosskreutz is suing Kenosha for improperly allowing an armed militia to imperil his safety. His complaint fails to mention the fairly important point that he had a gun in his hand when Rittenhouse shot him. And in post-testimony interviews on GMA and the like, he and his lawyer are claiming that he didn't aim his gun at Rittenhouse. I'll let those facts speak for themselves.

He has several convictions on his record, none felonies. He was also cited for taking cell video of private police vehicles parked in a lot near a police station, and is in some way affiliated with the People's Revolution, whatever that is. So yes, I'm very comfortable with my conclusion that he's a leftist ideologue.

Suing for money doesn't seem like a very comrade-y thing to do. Victor, care to weigh in? Using The System against itself, right? He's going to have a big party and give it all to the needy if he wins, right?

This is what he said in testimony:

"When you were standing 3-5 feet from him, with your arms in the air, he never fired, right?"

"Correct."

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun pointed at him, that he fired, right?"

"Correct."

If you watch the video, it seems pretty clear that he could have walked backwards and not get shot. There's a good couple of seconds before he gets the idea to bring his gun down to Rittenhouse's head and charge forward. Wtf did he do that for?

Loving how this judge has been slapping binger around! Fun trial to watch, binger is a total loser who belongs on a cnn panel!

Hello again, TittyBang, long time no see. You crawled away with your tail between your legs for over a year after your orange daddy got spanked, huh?

This mirrors exactly the right wing framing you will see of this incident where there is an attempt to not allow Gaige to be defined as 'thinking he was engaging an active shooter' and thus his approach and instead then suggests he was approaching with murderous intent for either revenge or because he had attended looking for an excuse to execute someone like Rittenhouse.

In the heat of the moment, if in fact you believe you have an Active Shooter, you are not trying to estimate the directional path of said shooter and making a quick calculation that 'he is running directionally towards police to surrender', police I am not sure are even visible yet from a persons ground view vantage point. There is no reason to believe that an active shooter, even if running directionally towards the police might not then see them and veer back and continue shooting.

Howard's position just excludes any positive intent by assuming any pursuer would quickly calculate 'he is running towards police, thus intends to surrender, so why confront him' which is a far less reasonable position than someone reacting to a belief that an active shooting is happening and rushing in to try and stop it.

The timeline also betrays Howards position as this scene was still ACTIVE. It is not like Rittenhouse has completed the first volley of shots 10's of minutes prior and was not in a position that someone who just reacted to the scene could see he had stopped. Quite the opposite. If you are Gaige, you hear 'active shooter' and just see a guy running down the street and you assume he is shooting people as he is running, this would all be one continuous event from your perception. The fact that it took place within minutes (not 10's of minutes or even 5's or minutes) supports the position it would be perceived as continuous.


I don't say this to paint Gaige as some hero rushing in to save others but this attempt to suggest the facts do not support the idea that he might have only been responding to what he though was an active shooter is an attempt to intonate 'he was a bad guy' and thus Rittenhouse was even more of a victim in this spot.

That is how I see that aspect of the scene as well, QP

Generally speaking that lowest of standards is only really available to police and not to the general public nor the military. Police generally have the absolute lowest standard in terms of 'fear' being used as a defense where if jurors can put themselves in the position of the Officer and see why they would be fearful they are basically required to let them walk.

So if a cop thought you looked like a criminal they had a description of and you were completely innocent and while reaching for your wallet to provide the ID demanded the cop shot you saying 'I feared that might have been a gun' the juror is asked is it reasonable to think that might be a gun and if so acquit.

You and I, nor a soldier (even in an active war zone around civilians) do not have that excuse. We must also generally establish the shooting was necessary by waiting to establish the threat is REAL and not just feared. We could have the exact same fear the cop does seeing someone reach in to their jacket pocket but killing them based on that alone and them being innocent should not be something you expect to fly as a defense.

Some States are rightly trying to close this 'Fear' loophole defense as the Police should not have the lowest threshold to kill. They should have the highest. They are hired to serve and protect and are trained so they should be required to accept the same risk you or I are expected to accept before defending ourselves.

And there you have it. Howard tips his hand as one in the BFI Covid thread who was one of the loudest in rising up to complain whenever someone would counter TS's absurd racist and xenophobic posts that politarding had no place and thus we was putting the people who 'reply' and counter that stuff on ignore while not doing same to TS.

I am not suggesting he is like TS but I think with the bolded above and his position in the BFI thread it is clear where his sympathies and thus rationalizations of what is right or wrong will be.

Also to his other point, I am not saying Rittenhouse has no self defense claim as I think he clearly does and will win this case.

However I think had Gaige killed Rittenhouse in that exchange, he too would have every bit as much as much a self defense claim. Chasing to apprehend a perceived active shooter who then points his AR at would be a very defense.

What Howard is arguing is he, as a juror, would not buy him as genuinely pursuing what he perceived to be an active shooter, nor would he buy his intent was to apprehend and not flat out murder. Fair enough given Howards biases, but that would not mean that not a single other juror would not buy it.

My issue with Howard is not that he holds his view but that he is arguing the other view is not a sound one, when it clearly and undeniable is if you base it on the assumption he could have genuinely thought he was reacting to an active shooter. Which is not so unreasonable (or unreasonable at all) such that it should be dismissed, as Howard is doing, as viable.

Nothing you say changes the facts.

Very few us, in that spot would have played out (game theorized) this situation so we had a singular rational reply to every movement by Rittenhouse.

Your intent is to 'stop an active shooter'.

You have never killed before and as you approach him you do not go in to instant kill mode peppering shots from a distance as you close.

Instead you close distance, subconsciously hoping he has stopped and you point your gun at him as you request he both stop and give you his weapon.


That would be the ultimate situation for you and I and 99% of the general populace rushing in to stop an active shooter had we been naive enough to take that action. Only maybe 1% would go in with the intent and follow thru to kill instantly without giving a chance to end it peacefully.


Us sitting here can call that naive as that is exactly what it is. Few people have the experience or the follow thru to kill. They are naive to how they will act and how hard it is to shoot someone in that moment if you are not trained to or reacting to direct gunfire at yourself.

huh?

Howard is a right wing ideologue so ofc he is going to see things this way. its consistent with his reactionary beliefs. "leftists" are supposed to get shot. and mocked for wanting health care.

I'm saying if he's a genuine commie and part of that People's Revolution party or whatever it was, surely the acquisition of capital is against his deeply held principles. Suing for $10m does not seem to bear this out. I was hoping you could provide an expert opinion.