What about the other facts.

The fact that the guy did not grab the gun until the guy fired it near his feet? The fact that the two guys had separated and had as much distance between them as they had at any point in this conflict since the gun was brought out and he fired anyway despite it showing the guy was NOT advancing? He is a good ~8ft away and not taking any steps toward him?

The shooting just seems like a hot headed, how dare you grab my gun while I am shooting at your feet, so now I get to gain space and execute you.

This is a just an example of hot headed shitty interactions in any civilized part of the world end up with hot words and not much else but in parts of Murica end up with bullets fired, just as the Librarian shot after a road rage incident is.

People act irrationally and emotionally in the heat of moment incidents. You cannot simply say 'they should not' and then 'they deserve to get shot when they do', if you are anything approaching a civilized society. Making emotions a death sentence carried out by any person who happens to be armed is just nonsense.

I know if someone was hitting me in the head with a skateboard and someone else was pointing a gun at me, I'd be pretty cool, calm and collected. People have often told me I'm kind of like Clint Eastwood in these situations. If I absolutely had to shoot in that situation I would have shot the gun out of his hand.

He's talking about the video in post 1777, not the Rittenhouse shootings.

I cannot figure out if you wrote that thinking it was a good reply? Witty, smart or funny? Or if you think my post was a reply to the KR situation and not the domestic dispute posted just above?

Anyway, total fail of a post as retort that makes no sense as a reply to what I wrote.

This is pretty much how I see it. Surprisingly maybe to some I agree with QP’s take pretty much about owning guns even though I own 4. I would have called 911.
Did a little research on the shooter. He is going through a divorce and his soon to be ex wife is a judge. I would definitely have tried to de-escalate the situation.

They're certainly not a preferred crowd control weapon.

Not a preferred close combat weapon either.

Not much of a military weapon anyway. Snipers use versions but infantry use the automatic mode.

Just something that someone who plays video games probably thinks makes him invincible.

Well, this is the exactly scenario you've been advocating for with me itt.
Actually the wee man had more reason to be afraid of the big guy than a random mob since he actually was the target of some aggression. The guy wasn't going to pass his house by.
So he did as you suggest. He came out and showed off his weapon.

So on a scale of 1 to 10, how to you rate the resolution of this conflict ?

No he woulda been murdered by the cops like any other left winger. From Ferguson to Portland, the fasce don't mess around.

GG was white. Cops only shoot blacks. Do you not watch the news? Geez!

in your fasce

They are the preferred self-defense weapon. That or a 12-gauge shotgun, depending on situation. Crowd control weapon means something entirely different.

As for military preference and efficacy, I'm not going to get into a debate with your 5-minute Googling.


Nope. Some blowhard, scheduled to pick up his kid from his ex-wife's house and gets pissed off when they give him the runaround, is not random rioters wanting to firebomb the next house in line.


Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't. If this guy was more than a blowhard, he would have never let him get that close to his weapon to begin with.

With a mob, you don't know what a random mob is going to do.

No. Pulling out a firearm on your stepson's father is not doing what I suggested. Are you for real or trolling?

He went into the house while the dad was arguing with his ex. He could have called police and hung back with his AR out of sight, and they would have taken care of it. If he entered the house, then he would be ready to take it to the next level if need be.

That's worlds apart from rioters destroying a community with police doing nothing and leaving you to fend for yourself or die. If the police is an option, of course you select that option.

My guess is the dad was a real piece of shiit (that's confirmed by no one checking on him and just going on arguing about why the kid isn't there while he's kissing dirt), and dude was looking for a reason to blast him. He gave him that reason, and he took it. As usual, all involved are idiots and nuts.

I didnt see the video but lets say Grosewitz and KR completely flipped bodies that night and actually it was KR who ended up killing grosewitz who was laying down in the vid etc,

then wouldn't you say KR is a murderer? since he chased grose and KR hit him with the skateboard etc also if KR said "im gonna kill you" ealier in the evening, wouldn't this all add up to a murder charge potentially?

Every weekend in America guys get drunk in bars and puff out their chests, get into it with other guys and say the words, "I'm gonna kill you." Does that give the other guy the right to kill the man who said those words?

Just let this sink in, a man who was unarmed, never harmed a hair on KR's little head, is dead. What action or actions did he take that put KR in grave danger? The answer is none. And when a man does nothing more than run his mouth and gets killed, we call that murder.

The video is a very good analysis of all sides and not that long, you should watch it.

It does not propose an alternate reality situation as you do here though. It deals with the situation as it rolled it. With Gaige, as it played out pulling the trigger first when KR was on the ground and killing him. Gaige is now on trial for murder and makes a claim of self defense. He was chasing, what he was convinced was an active shooter. When he caught up to that active shooter to arrest him, the guy pointed his AR at him and was about to kill him, and he fired in self defense.

The question is could a jury be convinced that is what he believed or better yet beyond a shadow of any doubt that he did NOT believe that and thus was guilty?

Someone played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. Now he gone. Hope he learned a valuable lesson.

He'd probably get acquitted on the top count. But if the jury came to essentially the same conclusion with the first shooting (that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot Rosenbaum), they'd probably convict Grosskreutz of a lesser included offense such as involuntary manslaughter since as reasonable as the belief may have been it was still an innocent man in the eyes of the jury that Grosskreutz chased down and killed.

I'm not so sure but then I do not understand the various distinctions in Manslaughter charges and think I saw it argues that Rittenhouse likely would have been convicted with a lesser negligence/manslaughter type charge???

Where I struggle with what you say is how much weight I would put on perfect or imperfect knowledge.

For instance

Scenario - man with conceal carry witnesses a man, he thinks an active shooter kill someone, while firing at others. He engages in the hopes of getting the man to stop and surrender but kills him when the 'shooter' points his gun at him.


Outcome 1 - turns out the guy was a very bad guy and active shooter. Man who killed him is treated like a hero and praised.

Outcome 2 - turns out the guy was an innocent person in the midst of self defense against others trying to kill him. He mistook the 'good guy with a gun' (conceal carry guy) for one of the bad guys when he pointed his gun and was killed


In both instances the conceal carry guy is acting with a pure intent and that is to help arrest and stop an active shooter.

Would he go to jail for Outcome 2 and that mistake when he would be praised for the exact same outcome in 1???

Seems like terrible result based thinking scenario to put a citizen in.

If you carry a firearm and engage another person with a firearm, it is your responsibility to be damn sure it's not an undercover cop or some other "good guy with a gun" before engaging him, unless you're a cop who does it.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...-officer-kills

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/u...-shooting.html

So a guy who doesn't know that the AR15 he's so in love with isn't an actual infantry weapon isn't going to debate me ?

Normally that would be standard but your lack of knowledge of anything hasn't stopped you so far.


I'm not trolling. I'm interested in how illogical and random your thought process is. As I said before, you're a very good example of why people shouldn't walk around armed. You're not at all rational and you have no common sense. lol It's funny.

In your mind you can use a weapon to defend yourself against people who aren't an immediate threat but you can't use it when a guy is on your property.

Seriously, never sit on a jury. Wow.

and the stupid prize KR should have won would be life in prison but the bleeding heart jury let him off.

Who said I'm in love with an AR15? Also, tense matters when people speak. Saying "was" used in the military does not mean it still "is" used in the military.

Sure, whatever you say.


You know nothing about me, so you probably shouldn't judge whether I should or shouldn't be armed.

Where did I say that?

When did I say that either?

Next time during the voir dire process, I'll pass along your sentiments.

So you support vigilantism? Perhaps you fancy anarchy as well?

In this particular situation, no. I think Rittenhouse is a bad person. I also think Rosembaum was a bad person. I'd prefer neither existed but I am glad that at least one of them is gone for good.

Rittenhouse just got lucky gunning down a PoS like this.

And I am fully of the belief that there are far more people like RH and RB than society is willing to accept so I am a little less unforgiving in taking someone's life than most left leaning folk if someone actually threatened my life or family (if even to a small degree) in a situation like breaking into my home or in a truly unprovoked situation.

I’m glad you celebrate miscarriages of justice. I hope you’re never on the wrong end of one