Kyle Rittenhouse says he is destroying the AR-15 rifle he used in Kenosha and doesn't want anything to do with it

[Rigby5]

Where did you get the idea that a skateboard is not a lethal weapon.

Man Killed After Hit in Head With Skateboard at Santa Ana Starbucks

A man was fatally injured Tuesday when he was allegedly hit on the head with a skateboard during a confrontation with a 20-year-old man inside a Santa Ana Starbucks.

www.nbclosangeles.com

Man Found Guilty in Skateboard Attack Death of Good Samaritan

A Humboldt County jury today found a man guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Bernhard “Ben” Bertain, who died on Christmas in 2018,...

www.northcoastjournal.com

Of course it's a lethal weapon and has killed.

Wrong.
Anyone can accidentally die from almost anything.
But the point is a skate board is extremely unlikely to be able to kill, and almost never does, so then lethal retaliation is NOT warranted.

Look, I have CCW permits, took the courses, passed the tests, so I know what I am talking about.
Anyone can easily prevent a skateboard from doing lethal harm, just by ducking or blocking with an arm.
Its a no brainer.
You can't even shoot someone with a baseball bat.
You can't escalate.

The exception would be someone frail or elderly, who could not defend themselves from a physical attack, and then would have to escalate.
Kyle himself was not at risk.
He caused the risk himself by the provocative act of bringing the gun.
They he increased the provocation by mingling alone with the demonstrators, in a manner that would likely be seen as deliberate intimidation.
Kyle could easily have found safety at any time, without shooting, by simply moving back to private property or going over to where the police were.
Shooting was not at all necessary or a reasonable act.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it wasnt. Grosskruitz said he pointed the gun at him when he testified under oath in court

Grosskruitz said he really could not remember the actual details, since the event was so traumatic and happened so fast.
But the doctors said the bullet path was impossible unless the arm was pointed up.

 

[Rigby5]

It is a heqvy hard edged board, of cours it can be used to kill

If someone were on the ground and you could swing the edge repeatedly, but that is not what happened.
The swing was flat on, and then the skate board was thrown.
So there was ZERO additional risk from the skateboard, and the shots were unnecessary deliberate murder.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Use of a deadly weapon is not determined by the victim's ability to defend themselves.

Assault in Illinois is any intentional conduct that reasonably causes a person to feel afraid of impending violence. Words alone are not an assault in Illinois, but threatening to hit someone, when said in a menacing or angry manner and accompanied by conduct consistent with the threat, is an assault. The words and conduct must have caused the victim to reasonably believe that he is about to be struck or injured. Threatening to harm someone in the future is not an assault. The threat of harm must cause the victim to fear an immediate attack

Battery is insulting or provoking actual physical contact, such as pushing another person; or intentionally causing bodily harm to another, for example, by hitting someone with an object.

(720 Ill. Comp. Stat.

Of course you don't know what you are talking about because the skateboard was considered a deadly weapon entitling Kyle Rittenhouse's use of self defense. What you are saying is that sitting in your basement from wherever you are, you know more about Illinois law than the judge in Illinois.

Give it up already accept reality.

 

[Rigby5]

Use of a deadly weapon is not determined by the victim's ability to defend themselves.

Yes it is.
For example, if you could simply leave and choose not to, then you can not shoot.
But if egress is blocked, that increases you right to escalate.
If they are twice your size, that increases your right to escalate.
If they know martial arts, that increases your right to escalate.

If you have alternatives to defend yourself and choose to shoot instead, then you are guilty.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If someone were on the ground and you could swing the edge repeatedly, but that is not what happened.
The swing was flat on, and then the skate board was thrown.
So there was ZERO additional risk from the skateboard, and the shots were unnecessary deliberate murder.

And the facts out of the courtroom say you don't know jack.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.
Anyone can accidentally die from almost anything.
But the point is a skate board is extremely unlikely to be able to kill, and almost never does, so then lethal retaliation is NOT warranted.

Look, I have CCW permits, took the courses, passed the tests, so I know what I am talking about.
Anyone can easily prevent a skateboard from doing lethal harm, just by ducking or blocking with an arm.
Its a no brainer.
You can't even shoot someone with a baseball bat.
You can't escalate.

The exception would be someone frail or elderly, who could not defend themselves from a physical attack, and then would have to escalate.
Kyle himself was not at risk.
He caused the risk himself by the provocative act of bringing the gun.
They he increased the provocation by mingling alone with the demonstrators, in a manner that would likely be seen as deliberate intimidation.
Kyle could easily have found safety at any time, without shooting, by simply moving back to private property or going over to where the police were.
Shooting was not at all necessary or a reasonable act.

It was a hard edged club....what part of that do you not understand........it is ridged, and has a thin edge, you can easily kill with it when you are hitting the head, as the violent felon was doing......

You do not understand anything about Self Defense law....why do you even try......please, read Andrew Branca or watch Massad Ayoob....they will explain exactly how you are wrong.....

If someone attacks you with any club, you can shoot and kill them in self defense......

Here...try this...

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Kyle was found NOT GUILTY. Does anybody think that rehashing the whole story over and over in a political forum is going to change that? Is someone's sense of righteous indignation somehow justified by jawing on and on about something you cannot change? If you keep whining on and on, do you actually think that jury is going to reconvene and decide they made a mistake in acquitting Kyle?

The smug leftists are very generous with their judgement of, "The election's over. Your boy lost. Get over it" and now I want to say "The trial is over. He was found by due process of law to be not guilty. Get over it."

 

[2aguy]

Yes it is.
For example, if you could simply leave and choose not to, then you can not shoot.
But if egress is blocked, that increases you right to escalate.
If they are twice your size, that increases your right to escalate.
If they know martial arts, that increases your right to escalate.

If you have alternatives to defend yourself and choose to shoot instead, then you are guilty.

Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.....

 

[2aguy]

If someone were on the ground and you could swing the edge repeatedly, but that is not what happened.
The swing was flat on, and then the skate board was thrown.
So there was ZERO additional risk from the skateboard, and the shots were unnecessary deliberate murder.

Here......a primer for you....

Decades before the Zimmerman case, I interviewed the Kentucky state trooper who became the focus of Case Two. In the course of a routine contact with two tough brothers, whom he had relieved of their folding knives, the pair attacked him and got him down on the road. They began to stomp him.

A kick that might only bruise your chest and knock the wind out of you when you are standing becomes deadly force when you are supine and can no longer “roll with the blow” or evade such a kick. With the unyielding pavement beneath you and the attacker’s whole body weight driving his foot, the rib cage is now likely to be shattered, and internal organs ruptured or pierced by broken bone. The trooper drew his issue sidearm of the time, a .357 Magnum, and fired twice. Each high-velocity 125-grain bullet instantly—and fatally—stopped its target.
-----



The boyfriend, much stronger than the defendant, drove his bare fist through the closed driver’s side window of the truck in a shower of shattered glass. Knowing that a blow that could break tempered safety glass could do the same to his head, the young man came up with a .38 Special revolver and shot the assailant in the chest. The latter reeled away from the truck, mortally wounded, and the young man backed out of the driveway to escape the others. Seeing them coming toward him, he fired a warning shot to hold them back, and then drove away.

Seen as having fled—we’ve discussed the “flight equals guilt” syndrome in these pages before—the man was arrested and charged. A jury saw the reality of the situation, however, and found him not guilty in the fatal shooting of his attacker. (It should be noted, however, that the final warning shot did result in a conviction for shooting from a moving vehicle, illegal in that state. This is another reason why warning shots are generally not recommended.)

Massad Ayoob: Deadly Force From A Position of Disadvantage

If you have studied deadly force law or have been reading this column for a while, you are familiar with

www.personaldefenseworld.com

 

[Bleipriester]

The arm Kyle shot was pointing up in the air at the time.
You can tell by the bullet path.
And you can tell he most certainly intended to unlawfully be in possession of the rifle, because he knew it was illegal for him to be in possession of it without an adult supervising.
That is why he had a friend hide the rifle at the friend's parent's house.

Whether the arm was up or down, doesn´t matter. The fact matters that Rittenhouse was just patrolling when the "medic" approached him, him especially, wearing a gun. That can be interpreted as a threat, no need to point at Rittenhouse with the gun. The two others shot by Rittenhouse were disgusting animals and nobody mourns after them. Also, the mad men attacked him. Two good deeds, if you ask me. I have respect for the third one and he had no bad intention. Next time, blacks should look for whitey´s criminal record before allowing them to join their protest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not guilty
Your opinion to the contrary does not matter
Move on.

 

[Rigby5]

It was a hard edged club....what part of that do you not understand........it is ridged, and has a thin edge, you can easily kill with it when you are hitting the head, as the violent felon was doing......

You do not understand anything about Self Defense law....why do you even try......please, read Andrew Branca or watch Massad Ayoob....they will explain exactly how you are wrong.....

If someone attacks you with any club, you can shoot and kill them in self defense......

Here...try this...

The video link was totally about the Amaud Arbury case, and was totally wrong.
The claim was that a construction site was badly and continually vandalized in the neighborhood, and that is not at all true.
Amaud Arbury and many others, including children, were on video walking through the construction site, but NO ONE too or harmed anything.

And no, Kyle was not harmed by the skate board.
It is very hard to use a skateboard as a weapon because it is too wide to hold onto.
So there was no excuse to escalate to lethal force over the skateboard.

 

[daveman]

That was not sufficient justification for pulling the trigger.
Since Kyle bringing the rifle was lethal intimidation, then any threats by others in retaliation, are not an escalation or the initiation of a lethal threat by others.
It was all Kyle's fault.

There were tons of alternatives Kyle could and should have done.
First of all, if the intent was to defend property, then he should have stayed at that property.
In which case he would not have been alone.
He also had the option of firing a warning shot, but failed to do so.
Close enough for a grab, means Kyle could easily have shot an arm or leg.
You do not do that at long range because it is too difficult and unreliable, but you DO shoot an arm or let when only 4' apart or less.
It is easy and reliable at that close range.
And Kyle fired 5 shots at the first person, when clearly he should never have aimed at them at all.
That many shots is to ensure a kill only, and can have no other possible intent.

Your butthurt was not entered into evidence. Kyle committed no crimes. Your anger and hatred are meaningless.

 

[Rigby5]

Kyle was found NOT GUILTY. Does anybody think that rehashing the whole story over and over in a political forum is going to change that? Is someone's sense of righteous indignation somehow justified by jawing on and on about something you cannot change? If you keep whining on and on, do you actually think that jury is going to reconvene and decide they made a mistake in acquitting Kyle?

The smug leftists are very generous with their judgement of, "The election's over. Your boy lost. Get over it" and now I want to say "The trial is over. He was found by due process of law to be not guilty. Get over it."

So you want to retain the new precedent where everyone should start bringing rifles to any demonstration, protest, etc.?
I think not.
This is not at all over, and definitely needs to be rehashed until they get it right.
Otherwise you are asking for massive violence.

 

[daveman]

Look, I have CCW permits, took the courses, passed the tests, so I know what I am talking about.

The fuck you do.

 

[daveman]

Grosskruitz said he really could not remember the actual details, since the event was so traumatic and happened so fast.
But the doctors said the bullet path was impossible unless the arm was pointed up.

He was holding a weapon it was illegal for him to have.

But you leftists always seem to ignore that part.

On purpose.

 

[Rigby5]

Here......a primer for you....

Decades before the Zimmerman case, I interviewed the Kentucky state trooper who became the focus of Case Two. In the course of a routine contact with two tough brothers, whom he had relieved of their folding knives, the pair attacked him and got him down on the road. They began to stomp him.

A kick that might only bruise your chest and knock the wind out of you when you are standing becomes deadly force when you are supine and can no longer “roll with the blow” or evade such a kick. With the unyielding pavement beneath you and the attacker’s whole body weight driving his foot, the rib cage is now likely to be shattered, and internal organs ruptured or pierced by broken bone. The trooper drew his issue sidearm of the time, a .357 Magnum, and fired twice. Each high-velocity 125-grain bullet instantly—and fatally—stopped its target.
-----



The boyfriend, much stronger than the defendant, drove his bare fist through the closed driver’s side window of the truck in a shower of shattered glass. Knowing that a blow that could break tempered safety glass could do the same to his head, the young man came up with a .38 Special revolver and shot the assailant in the chest. The latter reeled away from the truck, mortally wounded, and the young man backed out of the driveway to escape the others. Seeing them coming toward him, he fired a warning shot to hold them back, and then drove away.

Seen as having fled—we’ve discussed the “flight equals guilt” syndrome in these pages before—the man was arrested and charged. A jury saw the reality of the situation, however, and found him not guilty in the fatal shooting of his attacker. (It should be noted, however, that the final warning shot did result in a conviction for shooting from a moving vehicle, illegal in that state. This is another reason why warning shots are generally not recommended.)

Massad Ayoob: Deadly Force From A Position of Disadvantage

If you have studied deadly force law or have been reading this column for a while, you are familiar with

www.personaldefenseworld.com

Wrong.
The principle of not legally being allowed to escalate violence is a basic tenet that will always be true.
The only exception is as Massad correctly points out, is if there is a huge disparity between the 2 involved in the conflict.
{...
If you have studied deadly force law or have been reading this column for a while, you are familiar with the concept of disparity of force. When one is attacked violently by an ostensibly unarmed person, if the circumstances are such that the continued assault is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop him.

The most obvious elements of disparity of force would include force of numbers if you are attacked by multiple opponents; a dramatic size/weight/strength difference that favors the attacker; the able-bodied savagely attacking the handicapped, even if the handicap has taken place in the course of the instant assault; an adult attacking a small child; and in many cases a male attacking a female. Another element could be known or obvious high skill in unarmed combat on the assailant’s side of the conflict.
...}

Kyle was not attacked by more than 1 person at a time, nor was any weapon used against him.
And in fact, it was his provocative possession of the rifle that precipitated the conflict entirely, so was entirely his fault.
So he had no legal justification for escalation to lethal force.

 

[Rigby5]

Whether the arm was up or down, doesn´t matter. The fact matters that Rittenhouse was just patrolling when the "medic" approached him, him especially, wearing a gun. That can be interpreted as a threat, no need to point at Rittenhouse with the gun. The two others shot by Rittenhouse were disgusting animals and nobody mourns after them. Also, the mad men attacked him. Two good deeds, if you ask me. I have respect for the third one and he had no bad intention. Next time, blacks should look for whitey´s criminal record before allowing them to join their protest.

Wrong.
No one was approaching him until he started shooting.
Only then did people start to approach him, because they wanted to stop the deadly shooting.

Grosskreutz was not "wearing a gun".
It was under his shirt, tucked into his pants at the belt.
He did pull the gun out, but as everyone can see in the images, he was not pointing it at Kyle when Kyle illegally pulled the trigger.

 

[daveman]

The video link was totally about the Amaud Arbury case, and was totally wrong.
The claim was that a construction site was badly and continually vandalized in the neighborhood, and that is not at all true.
Amaud Arbury and many others, including children, were on video walking through the construction site, but NO ONE too or harmed anything.

And no, Kyle was not harmed by the skate board.
It is very hard to use a skateboard as a weapon because it is too wide to hold onto.
So there was no excuse to escalate to lethal force over the skateboard.

You wouldn't mind someone swinging one at you, then.