Gaige Grosskreutz -- The Felon Shot By Kyle Rittenhouse. No Charges?

[RedRover]

That's funny. Just the forearms. Hurts. A lot.

Yes, and as shown, also can be considered a deadly weapon.

 

[titsonritz]

I said: "Remember not all folks exercising their first amendment rights in Kenosha were destroying property or fighting with others."

Mostly peaceful is NOT what I said.

And I corrected you.

 

[MichaelH]

And I corrected you.

I appreciate your help.

 

[MichaelH]

Last thought: my bet is he's going to jail for awhile. Just being there is going to be a factual problem for him for a jury. The questions the typical middle of the road jurror are going to need answered are WTF were you even there, kid? Why did you have a loaded AR, kid? And his answers are going to sound stupid, not heroic.

That said, he's definitely got some stuff to talk about and some jurrors probably will feel sorry for him.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Mostly peaceful...

View attachment 1054645

View attachment 1054646

View attachment 1054647

View attachment 1054648

Yeah OK right.

 

[Caveman Jim]

One need not be very clever to frame a comment in a way that is guaranteed to piss off folks who prefer facts, evidence and logic over the ubiquitous MSM commentary preferred by the gorp gobbing outrage mob. This is why the trolling folk are not that hard to sniff out…same MO, different day.

Who got miffed today???

 

[SonicBlue03]

Why charge the guy with the AR? Young people heroics. I suppose the perspective of whether charging and trying to beat up a non-LEO with an AR is heroic or thug behavior is completely subjective depending on who you like. Remember not all folks exercising their first amendment rights in Kenosha were destroying property or fighting with others. Are the guys charging Rittenhouse violent rioters about to kick an innocent's bubblegum OR are they peaceful protesters trying to disarm a white supremacist shooter? Yes, maybe.

The day this happened I felt just as sorry for Rittenouse as the folks he shot. The entire situation was f$%ked.

I don't know if I'd label it heroics, or even label it a thuggery. Mob mentality is irrational, and the mob that night - like many nights in 2020 - had blood and rage on their minds. Not just over the Floyd incident, but in general a rage against the systems that many of them have grown up privileged in. And make no mistake, these were white people taking advantage of a tragic situation (Floyd) and exploiting it for their own twisted sense of right.

And again, the videos show that these weren't peaceful protestors. In fact (with some irony) the first guy who got shot in the bean had been antagonizing people all night. There is a clip out there where he's saying to someone, "come on, shoot me you n****r!" Can't make that stuff up.

The two that died played stupid games and won stupid prizes. So did Gaige, but he somehow got the consolation prize of being some sort of living martyr.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Last thought: my bet is he's going to jail for awhile. Just being there is going to be a factual problem for him for a jury. The questions the typical middle of the road jurror are going to need answered are WTF were you even there, kid? Why did you have a loaded AR, kid? And his answers are going to sound stupid, not heroic.

That said, he's definitely got some stuff to talk about and some jurrors probably will feel sorry for him.

Those questions will not be factually relevant to the charges against him, however. If his attorney isn't a total moron, they will not be answered if even asked by the prosecution. And in Wisconsin, he was lawfully carrying. No justification is needed for a lawful activity. Just sayin.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

It was "Stars", the same chain that is over on this side in Salem. I just remember drinking heavily because our hotel room was literally across the parking lot so no one was driving.

No-tell Motel 6! The girls who work at Stars have spent many a night there if you catch my drift.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

This statement is so f'd up on so many levels.
First, A jury will decide Rittenhouse's fate. He chose to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time LARPing that resulted in two deaths.

He stupidly inserted himself into a dangerous situation. Choosing to be in the wrong place at the wrong time does not, however, nullify one's right to self-preservation.

The last guy he killed was "armed" with a skateboard.

The Wisconsin statue provides for lethal force to be lawfully-used against GBH. A skateboard will work just fine for that.

From the video footage I saw, his self-defense claim is about as good as the guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery.

Strawman. The facts in each case are not even remotely similar.

It's up to a jury to figure it out.

Well, yes, and what's your point?

IMO whovever got the great idea to take him and hand him a rifle is really responsible for those two deaths.

He was lawfully carrying in Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse is responsible for those two deaths, no one else: He was the one who pulled the trigger. Whether he is criminally liable remains to be seen. If it can be proved to a jury that he acted in self defense, then he will likely be acquitted. Objectively, he was not the aggressor. The headkicker, the dead felon, the dead pedophile, and the maimed felon were the aggressors.

Second, it sounds alot like you're hint-and-wink advocating mass shootings. Really not a great look for the community.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Last I checked, assault with a deadly weapon included skate boards, so yea, lethal self defense is justifiable, considering that skate board was aimed at Kyles head and being swung with sufficient force to have been lethal!

Exactly when does a persons right begin? is there some arbitrary age when one is finally able to exercise their inalienable rights, or are we born with them?
An awful lot of folks say Kyle shouldn't have been there, he had every right to be there, same as you and me, his age or status should have zero bearing on that fact, it's protected under the B.o.R. the right to peaceably assemble, along with the right to speak freely! No one gets to determine whether Kyle had a right to be there or not, He absolutely did! Show the class where in the 2nd does it say a person must be a certain age to exercise the right to self defense, I'll wait!

As I have stated previously -- he stupidly inserted himself into a dangerous situation. However, stupidly inserting yourself into a dangerous situation does not nullify your right to self-preservation.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Hahaha! I knew if I expressed my opinion my notifications would blow up. Every few months I seem to put on the target shirt. Happy preaching to your choir gentlemen!

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: You are not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

An objective review of that facts in this case point to a justified use of lethal force in the act of self-defense. That this dumb kid is even charged is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Pretty liberal. The name of the forum is Northwest Firearms not the OAN forum. Is there anything more pointless than preaching to a choir?

Rigorous debate is wonderful. But that generally requires facts.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: You are not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

An objective review of that facts in this case point to a justified use of lethal force in the act of self-defense. That this dumb kid is even charged is a miscarriage of justice.

Zacklies!
Dudes like this cannot discuss topics like this with out resorting to the above tactics to support their weak sauce argument! Furthermore, resorting to divisive dickish comments accusing members of attacking his opinions, no matter how miss informed they are, only solidifies the members negative response to him!

 

[Diamondback]

Zacklies!
Dudes like this cannot discuss topics like this with out resorting to the above tactics to support their weak sauce argument! Furthermore, resorting to divisive dickish comments accusing members of attacking his opinions, no matter how miss informed they are, only solidifies the members negative response to him!

Sounds like a clear-cut case of "Target, Troll in the Open, FIRE FOR EFFECT" to me... @Moderators ?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Hateful? Advocating that scumbags should be shot is hateful, IMO.

Agreed. How about people presenting an articulable lethal threat?

Should a vandal be shot?

Strawman.

A participant in a fistfight?

Strawman.

How about you local neighborhood nuisance camper?

Strawman.

No one should have been shot.

No one should have assaulted the dumb kid nor presented to him an articulable lethal threat.

Moreover if someone didn't stick a 17 year old kid into a protest/with rioting happening with a loaded AR15--or if this minor had not made this choice--it's possible no one would have been shot.

If four adults -- thee of them known felons armed with firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments, the other never identified -- hadn't assaulted or attempted to assault the 17-year old and presented to him an articulable lethal threat, it's possible on one would have been shot.

Remember this kid shot 3 people at three different times, not just this particular ashhole who is the subject of this post.

Remember this kid was assaulted or threatened with articulable lethal force four different times, not just by the bubblegum who is the subject of this post.

I wasn't there and neither were any of us. As I've said elsewhere a jury will figure it out based on the evidence presented.

Fortunately we have hours of video from every conceivable angle. Anyone who sits on a jury wasn't there either. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Guns make us safer when we're minding our own business.

They don't make us safer. They are tools that increase the odds of successfully defending ourselves and others in the hands of people with no ill intent. They also increase the odds of bad things being perpetrated in the hands of people with ill intent.

They make us targets of people with good and bad intentions if we walk around in public brandishing them.

Do you mean brandishing or just carrying? Brandishing is a crime. That said, here we agree. Ironically, Kyle Rittenhouse was acting lawfully carrying a long gun in Wisconsin. He would have been acting unlawfully had he been in possession of a handgun -- a crime for a person under 18. Of course the dirtbag loser with a rap sheet spanning half his life whom had one of his arms shortened by Rittenhouse was committing a similar crime by being a felon in possession and then brandishing -- two crimes he will never be charged with by the corrupt prosecutor in Kenosha County.

Facts.

Honestly, if you saw some teenager out in the street with an AR 15 in Portland your first inclination would be to view him as a threat--and depending on your options maybe one to be neutralized--not a responsible armed citizen.

You are speaking only for yourself.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Zacklies!
Dudes like this cannot discuss topics like this with out resorting to the above tactics to support their weak sauce argument! Furthermore, resorting to divisive dickish comments accusing members of attacking his opinions, no matter how miss informed they are, only solidifies the members negative response to him!

Well, I have to make the same comment: our fellow poster -- regardless of the veracity of his argument -- is still not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Well, I have to make the same comment: our fellow poster -- regardless of the veracity of his argument -- is still not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

I already stated my opinions on this thread topic and the divisive attitudes shown here toward Kyle, his right to be there, his right to be armed, and all that, I also stated that Gaige G was actively seeking to kill Kyle, likely before the first shots ( possibly the warning shot that was fired before Kyle defended him self the first time) and further more, Gaige admitted guilt by his intent, the interview of him posted to social media after release from the emergency room where he admitted he was going to KILL Kyle and take his rifle! This is all known fact, nothing more to add until the trial provides more context!

I will however state it again, Kyle had the absolute right to be there as a free citizen, he had the absolute right to be armed, and he had the absolute right to defend himself, Period! His "Dumbness" I.E. Being a dumb kid has nothing to do with anything, by singling him out as just some dumb kid detracts from all the thousands of other dumb people present during that riot! Dumb is a matter of perspective, calling out this kid singularly is completely unfair!

 

[titsonritz]

Rigorous debate is wonderful. But that generally requires facts.

Apparently not these days, just widdle feewins.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I already stated my opinions on this thread topic and the divisive attitudes shown here toward Kyle, his right to be there, his right to be armed, and all that, I also stated that Gaige G was actively seeking to kill Kyle, likely before the first shots ( possibly the warning shot that was fired before Kyle defended him self the first time) and further more, Gaige admitted guilt by his intent, the interview of him posted to social media after release from the emergency room where he admitted he was going to KILL Kyle and take his rifle! This is all known fact, nothing more to add until the trial provides more context!

I will however state it again, Kyle had the absolute right to be there as a free citizen, he had the absolute right to be armed, and he had the absolute right to defend himself, Period! His "Dumbness" I.E. Being a dumb kid has nothing to do with anything, by singling him out as just some dumb kid detracts from all the thousands of other dumb people present during that riot! Dumb is a matter of perspective, calling out this kid singularly is completely unfair!

Yet you were not addressing the topic, rather the other poster. IE, not relevant, fallacy argumentum ad hominem. To your second point, I never claimed being a dumb kid has anything to do with the facts of his criminal case. That he is a dumb kid who inserted himself into a dangerous situation is my opinion. You are certainly free to disagree. That he was lawfully carrying and subsequently discharged his weapon in self defense are facts, not subject to opinion.