A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

When I first read about this I thought about when my own son and his neighborhood pals were 17 some ten years ago....and I wondered what kind of parents would allow their 17 year old boy to go off at night....to a riot....carrying a weapon....of any sort at all from a slingshot on up. And then I saw the picture of Rittenhouse as a young child holding a rifle and I knew the answer to my question.
And don't get me wrong....I support our right to bear arms but only for the principle of it....and not because I think we need to need to carry weapons. In my long and full life I have never personally known anyone who found themselves in a situation where they needed a weapon.

Comedian Chris Rock may have come up with a solution to gun violence with his idea that if all bullets cost a thousand dollars each people might realize that they weren't quite as angry as they thought they were.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dragonridr

Which medic and which interview? If you’re referring to McGinniss, I’m genuinely curious what part of what he’s said in his statement makes you think Kyle is in trouble.

They have interviewed everyone its all over the papers even talked to school mates. aparently he was voted most likely to be a scool shooter. Had a fascination with guns and the police raised by a single parent namely his mom. from the scene the interviews were frpm eye witnesses like the girl who was a licensed emt.she gave a very unflttering description of him but to some extent thats to be expected just complicates his defense.

Even if this young man is found not guilty by grounds of self defense....this is a moment that this young man will relive over and over in his mind for the rest of his life. He has forever been changed by this. His mother failed him big time.

a reply to: dragonridr

Cool but like....source? I can’t find a single article that mentions him being voted most likely to be a school shooter. Seems an odd thing to say when he’s a dropout.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Doubt it.

Normal people don't feel guilty for defending themselves from factual domestic terrorists. He had nothing but the best intentions. The attackers had nothing but the worst intentions. He didn't start the fight, but he decisively ended it. Again, he did nothing wrong and he is going to walk.

Mark this post, this is Nick Sandmann 2.0

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Doubt it.

Normal people don't feel guilty for defending themselves from factual domestic terrorists. He had nothing but the best intentions. The attackers had nothing but the worst intentions. He didn't start the fight, but he decisively ended it. Again, he did nothing wrong and he is going to walk.

Mark this post, this is Nick Sandmann 2.0

Lol. No, this kid has no legal defense to stand on.

You can't murder several unarmed civilians, emerge unscathed, and argue self defense when there are multiple videos showing his life was never close to being in danger.

This is exactly why you don't let children have deadly weapons.

a reply to: DustDoses

how do you come up with "unarmed"
first felon killed tried to take Kyle gun away twice.
second felon both threw and hit him with an unusual weapon--a skateboard.
third felon, with misted right arm had a semi auto pistol.

Why does the first guy have a small bullet wound in his head and the third guy have half his arm blown off it’s the same gun being used? I would expect to see a large exit wound. Also, why do I hear more than one type of gun being fired In the videos?

a reply to: liveandletlive

head wound was a grazing wound. the kill shot came from his back.

the arm mist felon took the full hydro static energy of the .223/5.56mm round,
traveling at 2800 fps and rotating at 300,000 rpm. it drilled his arm and likely expanded on impact.

a reply to: DustDoses

That’s a strong position to take for one so woefully ignorant of several completely established and accepted facts. Bold move

originally posted by: liveandletlive
Why does the first guy have a small bullet wound in his head and the third guy have half his arm blown off it’s the same gun being used? I would expect to see a large exit wound. Also, why do I hear more than one type of gun being fired In the videos?

Kyle was one of several armed persons that night

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Doubt it.

Normal people don't feel guilty for defending themselves from factual domestic terrorists. He had nothing but the best intentions. The attackers had nothing but the worst intentions. He didn't start the fight, but he decisively ended it. Again, he did nothing wrong and he is going to walk.

Mark this post, this is Nick Sandmann 2.0

Lol. No, this kid has no legal defense to stand on.

You can't murder several unarmed civilians, emerge unscathed, and argue self defense when there are multiple videos showing his life was never close to being in danger.

This is exactly why you don't let children have deadly weapons.

You are about as "out to lunch" as a person can be, he will walk on most charges, also, self defence is not murder.

Pro tip for you..if you see a guy with a rifle, don't chase him and try and take it.

a reply to: ontogeny55

It’s confusing that the head wound is thought of as a “grazing wound” considering the apparent brain damage. If the kill shot came from behind, doesn’t that mean someone else fired the kill shot?

“As the camera closes in on the felled pursuer clear evidence of head trauma can be seen including an apparent cerebral flow nosebleed. Twitching in the extremities suggests severe brain injury. A smartphone in the foreground reads 11:49pm.”

"Dr. Kelly of the Milwaukee Medical Examiner's Office conducted an office on Joseph Rosenbaum. Dr. Kelly indicated that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead.“

Isn't that five shots if you include the shot to the back?

a reply to: liveandletlive
There were other shooters, but nothing on vid other than 1 guy firing a shot in the air..who knows. He could have multiple wounds from a single bullet though.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Doubt it.

Normal people don't feel guilty for defending themselves from factual domestic terrorists. He had nothing but the best intentions. The attackers had nothing but the worst intentions. He didn't start the fight, but he decisively ended it. Again, he did nothing wrong and he is going to walk.

Mark this post, this is Nick Sandmann 2.0

Lol. No, this kid has no legal defense to stand on.

You can't murder several unarmed civilians, emerge unscathed, and argue self defense when there are multiple videos showing his life was never close to being in danger.

This is exactly why you don't let children have deadly weapons.

You are about as "out to lunch" as a person can be, he will walk on most charges, also, self defence is not murder.

Pro tip for you..if you see a guy with a rifle, don't chase him and try and take it.

Nobody tried to take his weapon. It's clear from the video that the victim was standing about three feet away when he was killed, with no intermediate contact between the two men.

There is a witness report from a reporter that was near the incident, but his view was obstructed, as he was standing to the rear of Rosenbaum at the moment in question.

Bottom line, his account is only that Rosenbaum grabbed for or reached for the rifle, he is unclear on whether there was ever contact between Rosenbaum and the rifle. This matters greatly.

Adding to this is the problem that Kyle had pointed his weapon at other witnesses, according to several accounts.

This is actually an assault.

The reality is, you're living in unicorn land if you think that a kid is going to get off for killing unarmed civilians. Especially given the video evidence that he emerged perfectly unscathed.

Not going to happen in a million years. Just giving you all a proper legal perspective.

Dont get your hopes up.

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: DustDoses

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Doubt it.

Normal people don't feel guilty for defending themselves from factual domestic terrorists. He had nothing but the best intentions. The attackers had nothing but the worst intentions. He didn't start the fight, but he decisively ended it. Again, he did nothing wrong and he is going to walk.

Mark this post, this is Nick Sandmann 2.0

Lol. No, this kid has no legal defense to stand on.

You can't murder several unarmed civilians, emerge unscathed, and argue self defense when there are multiple videos showing his life was never close to being in danger.

This is exactly why you don't let children have deadly weapons.

You are about as "out to lunch" as a person can be, he will walk on most charges, also, self defence is not murder.

Pro tip for you..if you see a guy with a rifle, don't chase him and try and take it.

Nobody tried to take his weapon. It's clear from the video that the victim was standing about three feet away when he was killed, with no intermediate contact between the two men.

There is a witness report from a reporter that was near the incident, but his view was obstructed, as he was standing to the rear of Rosenbaum at the moment in question.

Bottom line, his account is only that Rosenbaum grabbed for or reached for the rifle, he is unclear on whether there was ever contact between Rosenbaum and the rifle. This matters greatly.

Adding to this is the problem that Kyle had pointed his weapon at other witnesses, according to several accounts.

This is actually an assault.

The reality is, you're living in unicorn land if you think that a kid is going to get off for killing unarmed civilians. Especially given the video evidence that he emerged perfectly unscathed.

Not going to happen in a million years. Just giving you all a proper legal perspective.

Dont get your hopes up.

I have no hopes, the kid is not a villian though. And, the first guy, was grabbing for the gun, according to the witness.

Anyway..enough of this for awhile

a reply to: DustDoses

The most hysterical part of your comment is that you’re so cocksure of your position that you casually dismiss the eyewitness who was there and was within a few feet of what happened and present your own opinion as if it’s a settled fact despite your opinion coming from a video dozens of feet even further away from the shooting, and even then it’s a camera recording.

That’s some incredible mental gymnastics.

a reply to: liveandletlive

i lend the maximum credence to the autopsy

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: liveandletlive
There were other shooters, but nothing on vid other than 1 guy firing a shot in the air..who knows. He could have multiple wounds from a single bullet though.

multiple wounds from a single bullet.
sounds like the "magic bullet" from 11/22/1963