Tucker Carlson defends actions of teen charged in killings of Kenosha protesters
Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, has been charged with murder after two people were killed at Black Lives Matter protest
Well, no, he doesn’t actually.
On his TV show Carlson – who has a long record of making racist and inflammatory statements, triggering an advertising boycott – said that Rittenhouse’s actions were understandable given the violence and property damage in the city.
“Kenosha has devolved into anarchy because the authorities in charge of the city abandoned it. People in charge from the governor of Wisconsin on down refused to enforce the law. They stood back and they watched Kenosha burn,” Carlson said.
He then added: “So are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?”
He says that if you allow mob rule then who could be surprised that you get mobs?
As to what actually happened:
A 17-year-old has been arrested and charged with murder after two people were killed on Tuesday night when violence erupted in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after white vigilante-type agitators shot at Black Lives Matter protesters.
It’s worth reading that piece. As even The Guardian is having trouble with it all. They – even they – seem to be saying that the (white) BLM protestors were, at least at one point, chasing the laddie with the gun.
Although the sequence of events remains confusing, the Guardian has tried to piece together what happened from video and images posted online showing the run-up to the shooting and its aftermath.
The alleged shooter first appears in footage wearing a baggy light-green T-shirt and dark jeans and a white reversed baseball cap, with other armed people apparently in the vicinity of a site identified as Bert and Rudy’s Auto Service petrol station, where alleged militia members had gathered before the first shots.
In these pictures, the man who appears to be in his late teens or early 20s, carries an assault-style rifle, a distinctive black and orange shoulder bag, wearing what appear to be purple nitrile gloves of the kind used by first aiders and hospital staff.
While what occurs in the intervening period before the first shots is not clear, video taken during the first fatal shooting shows a man with a rifle being pursued by a second man in front of a building with an auto service sign. The pursuer appears to throw something white at him as the two men approach several parked cars.
Several shots ring out, before the figure with the rifle reappears from the far side of the cars and walks round to approach where a young white man without a shirt has fallen with a gunshot wound to the head.
The figure with the gun is identifiable as the young man in the green T-shirt, with the black and orange bag and purple gloves from earlier in the evening
As another man takes off his T-shirt to apply pressure to the wound, the man with the gun turns to leave, talking on a phone.
The next footage takes up events a short time later, showing what appears to be the same man jogging down a street being pursued by others, alerted by the first shots.
At which point Tucker seems justified in what he said. If things get to where peeps with guns are roaming the streets then sure, someone’s going to get shot.
Recommendation for a Congressional Medal of Honor in order?
Looks like the American constitution works.
Good luck finding a jury who haven’t seen the video…
He should be released with the thanks of the community.
As should the police officers who tried to arrest George Floyd, and that other one in Ferguson and of course George Zimmerman. The future does not look good for this boy.
Of course, to the weapons experts employed by the Grauniad, any long-barrelled gun is an assault rifle.
The most obvious case of self-defense anyone is likely to see.
Oh, and two of the ‘victims’ were nonces.
Score: he got the bloke who landed a flying kick after he was down, and the bloke who hit him with a skateboard while down and grazed the bloke carrying an illegal small fire arm. In self defence. Very interesting that all three people he shot were convicted felons with records of violent crime, released presumably because of Wuflu and transported to the small town to riot. Were they paid? By whom?
‘who has a long record of making racist and inflammatory statements’
‘The rightwing Fox News’
Ad hominem soup.
Seen videos of all three shootings and all are the most obvious self defence you’d ever see.
Technically they said “assault-style rifle*”, which the AR15 (especially in the configuration you see him carrying his) is. The only difference between an AR15 and M16 is two parts and a felony. There is literally no functional difference between an M16 assault rifle with the selector set to “single” and the AR15 he was carrying. It would also qualify as an “Assault Weapon” as understood by the state of California.
I’m all for calling out media hysteria over black rifles, but by Guardian standards this reporting is remarkably accurate and non-inflammatory.
* like “cheese-style sandwich product”?
Anarchy on the streets. Police not allowed to enforce the law. Massive amounts of criminal damage to private property. Riots spreading from city to city. No end in sight, least not before the elections. Is it any wonder that a ‘protestor’ or two got shot? Especially after others defending property have already been killed by protestors.
Now whether this kid is a murder or not is a more complex question. Out on the street with a firearm looking for trouble but was the intent to kill, or just scare people off? Shooting someone who is assaulting you is self defence pretty much everywhere. The challenge is the first shooting – if that’s self defence the rest will follow as the same. If not then its a shooting spree.
The left wing will be pushing for more firearm controls after this, so rioters can be left to roam free rather than possibly be harmed. At what point does the left consider that people’s actions should have consequences for them? Never? Is it *always* the fault of Trump?
@ Mr Moose
I admit to not having seen the footage before taking the Grauniad to task for their presumed weapons expertise. I was relying on previous occasions when they were likely to use the ‘assault’ tag for anything more lethal than a nerf gun.
The most obvious case of self-defense anyone is likely to see.
Not in the eyes of the law. There are three elements to successfully establishing a claim of self-defense in the U.S. legal system. They are as follows:
1) You must have a justified fear of grave injury or death.
2) You cannot do anything to initiate or escalate the conflict in question.
3) You have a duty to attempt to retreat.
The video I’ve seen establishes, to my eyes, that he meets elements 1 and 3. Element 2 is where he fails: Bringing a firearm to the scene of a riot can (and will be) be viewed as either initiation, escalation, or both. Especially when the fireman in question is open carried.
Joseph Rosenbaum ,the first guy he killed ( and convicted sex-offender), threw a petrol bomb at him which missed and got shot in the head for his trouble. The second guy he killed Anthony Huber(convicted of domestic abuse), attacked him with a skateboard and got shot in the chest for his trouble. The third man he shot, Gaige Paul Grosskreutz (felony burglary)approached Kyle with his hands up, then drew a pistol and pointed it at Kyle, who shot him in the right arm.
In my opinion, after having seen the videos, there’s no way any unbiased jury could convict him of murder.
https://twitter.com/mt_lass/status/1298826944335589376
They got the sequence broadly right. But it ain’t that confusing. A bit of a give away when the journos stick to reporting and don’t go off on one.
1)red t shirt guy chases after green shirt gun carrier.- green shirt poss running away from an alternation or running towards group of ant fa smashing up/setting fire to a car dealership. (I’d guess the latter and had announced it withing earshot of red t shirt guy. who thought “oh no you don’t”)
2)Red shirt catches up to him, Green shirt turns fires- red shirt falls.
3) Green shirt comes round the cars and sees red shirt laid out on the ground – rings 911- informs them i was attacked and i shot someone. As people start to return to help the shot red shirt guy, someone tells him to scarper. (allegedly 911 operative told him to go to police lines down the block – so they’d expect him) – footage shows redshirt hit in head/temple death rattle.
4)new footage shows green shirt trotting towards the police line 300yards off persued by a crowd. (we hear -“They’re going to beat him up”)
5) He trips and everyone he subsequently shoots and shoots at was an arms length away from him and approaching him.
All depends i suppose on why red t shirt guy chased him. Either green shirt had committed a crime and red shirt was going to make a citizens arrest- then everything beyond that is probably illegal too. But very likely that red shirt guy was trying to stop green shirt stopping a crime or just trying to commit his own crime…and all after that is self defence, bloody tragic self defence.
and my thoughts? This boy must be an orphan – because whose father or mother lets a 17 year old out with a gun in a riot.
In my opinion, after having seen the videos, there’s no way any unbiased jury could convict him of murder.
Murder in Wisconsin is a Class A felony. The definition is:
First degree murder in Wisconsin is to cause the death of another human or an unborn child with the intent to kill that person, or for a fetus an intent to kill the pregnant woman or unborn child.
Wisconsin doesn’t have a manslaughter statue. It was replaced by “second degree intentional homicide”. It is a Class B felony. A murder charge can be downgraded to second degree intentional homicide via any of four mitigating circumstances: Adequate provocation, unnecessary defensive force, prevention of a felony and coercion or necessity.
If Rittenhouse has be charged with first degree murder, then that’s going to be a reach. Could he be convicted of second degree intentional homicide? I’d wager on “Yes”.
“unnecessary defensive force”- well that seems to be where the courtroom battleground will be. Unarmed guy attacks you. Are you expected to keep it Queensbury or can you invoke some help from Sam Colt.
Element 2 is where he fails: Bringing a firearm to the scene of a riot can (and will be) be viewed as either initiation, escalation, or both. Especially when the fireman in question is open carried.
Not by the police, though. They’d already chatted with Rittenhouse and other open carrying citizens in the vicinity, exchanging water with them. Wisconsin is an open carry state and it’s not clear if a riot had been declared at this particular location.
More at issue will be that Rittenhouse travelled from out of state, is underage for open carry in Wisconsin, and subsequently fled the state (though he made a good effort to surrender himself to police at the scene).
Open carry is not initiating or escalating any conflict.
It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
Wisconsin allows open carry.
The videos make it clear he acted in self defense. He’ll walk eventually.
No, it is not. ‘Assault style rifle’ means nothing. There’s no such thing. Its a made up term ignorant people use when they know enough to know not to call it an ‘assault rifle’. ‘Assault’ is not a rifle style.
You could just as well call it a ‘patrol rifle’ – which cops like to describe them as.
The reality is that the AR-15 is basically a jumped up varmint hunting rifle with a pistol grip.
Open carry is not initiating or escalating any conflict.
It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
Wisconsin allows open carry.
Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin, just as it is in Ohio. But within the legal system, circumstance will play its part. Nothing is absolute. Falsely yelling “Fire!” in a theater may be freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you can do it without legal repercussions.
I think the prosecutors and a fair whack of the public will harbor grave doubts about any argument that open carrying a rifle into an area where a riot is occurring wouldn’t be seen as initiation or escalation. Rittenhouse wasn’t defending himself on his own property. He deliberately traveled to an area of the city where a riot was in progress. With a rifle. To my mind that’s initiation. Period.
And don’t think I don’t harbor far more sympathy for him than for his victims.
>Assault-style rifle means nothing
Now come on, you know that’s not true. California defined clearly what an “assault weapon” is in law, so clearly it’s possible that the words “assault-style weapon” could also mean something. Phrases don’t always have mathematically-precise definitions, but we still use them. We have laws about “pornography”. Everyone knows what a bullpup is*.
Any reasonable person who’d never heard of an “assault-style rifle” before would assume it meant “rifle that looks like an assault rifle but is not an assault rifle”, just as if they encountered the phrase “IBM-style keyboard” or “Atom-style sports-car”.
This specific rifle in this specific story is bang-to-rights an “assault-style rifle”, as anyone making a good-faith attempt to understand the phrase in its plainest meaning would understand it. The specific rifle in this specific story, an AR15 with an M4-style stock, 30-round magazine, and red-dot sight looks as close as is (without falling under SBR or machine gun laws) possible to look like a specific assault rifle: the M4 carbine, which has become emblematic of the US armed forces thanks to having been (in some form) their main service rifle for more than half a century.
No reasonable person would say that the specific rifle from this story was not an “assault-style rifle”. You might not like the term, but it’s stretching to say that it’s meaningless or not applicable to the firearm in question, especially in an article for a general audience.
* is an Uzi with a stock a bullpup? Why not?
‘Assault style rifle’ means nothing. There’s no such thing. Its a made up term ignorant people use when they know enough to know not to call it an ‘assault rifle’. ‘Assault’ is not a rifle style.
I’m afraid you’ve proved Bathroom Moose’s point. The term does mean something. And actually it means the same thing to both the informed and the ‘ignorant’… It’s any rifle that looks something like an AR-15, irrespective of features and caliber.
I don’t like the term any more than you do, but it’s here and here to stay.
“Not in the eyes of the law. There are three elements to successfully establishing a claim of self-defense in the U.S. legal system.”
Nope. There is no “U.S. legal system” for murder. Murder is state law. All 50 states have their own laws.
“They are as follows:
1) You must have a justified fear of grave injury or death.
2) You cannot do anything to initiate or escalate the conflict in question.
3) You have a duty to attempt to retreat.”
Case in point: #3. States with “Castle Doctrine,” and there are many, by statute declare that you do NOT have a duty to retreat. In South Carolina, it applies outside the home, too. Where ever you are, if you are going about your lawful business, you have no duty to retreat. If assaulted at the gas station or grocery store, I can shoot a creep if he poses a serious threat to me. Additionally, SC Castle Doctrine prohibits civil action against anyone exercising such lawful defense.
“I’m all for calling out media hysteria over black rifles, but by Guardian standards this reporting is remarkably accurate and non-inflammatory.”
Wat? “Technically they said “assault-style rifle*”
Which is inflammatory.
“which the AR15 (especially in the configuration you see him carrying his) is.”
A contrivance to stir emotions.
“The only difference between an AR15 and M16 is two parts and a felony. There is literally no functional difference between an M16 assault rifle with the selector set to “single” and the AR15 he was carrying.”
Fuck off. Your equivalence of the two is stupid.
Technically they said “assault-style rifle*”
Where did this come from? It’s not in the two linked articles.
“Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin, just as it is in Ohio. But within the legal system, circumstance will play its part. Nothing is absolute. Falsely yelling “Fire!” in a theater may be freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you can do it without legal repercussions.”
This is incoherent drivel.
“I think the prosecutors and a fair whack of the public will harbor grave doubts about any argument that open carrying a rifle into an area where a riot is occurring wouldn’t be seen as initiation or escalation. Rittenhouse wasn’t defending himself on his own property. He deliberately traveled to an area of the city where a riot was in progress. With a rifle. To my mind that’s initiation. Period.”
Then you are a muppet. It’s a good job your opinions are not all that significant.
“And don’t think I don’t harbor far more sympathy for him than for his victims.”
No, you are merely attempting to appear knowledgeable and contrary on the internet. It’s not working.
To those of you getting their panties in a twist about “assault style rifle,” give it a rest. Is the Guardian a silly publication? Sure, generally. But I would have no problem if they simply called an AR-15 an assault rifle. “Style” has nothing to do with it.
And to those pedants who would seek to correct me, don’t bother. There is no practical difference between an AR-15 (a good one, anyway) and an M16. I write this, by the way, as a former infantry NCO in the US Army.
Gamecock –
Yes, self defense is state law, but is fairly uniform across states. Found this out when Ohio revised “duty to retreat” language to conform with the other 49 states.
A –
Is that you, Arnald?
Well, then, Kenny, you know the difference between a sub machine gun, a battle rifle, and an assault rifle.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a lie to suggest they are. To equivalence them is also a lie. By your expressed experience, YOU KNOW IT IS A LIE! YOU, SIR, ARE A LIAR!
Gamecock –
Forgot about the “stand your ground” states, so you are right about the duty to retreat in those states. For those states with duty to retreat (a majority, I think), my comment stands.
Castle Doctrine. As in Frank Castle?
He’s mixed castle doctrine with stand your ground legislation. Stand your ground means you don’t have a duty to retreat, period. Castle doctrine is meaningful in all states (but especially those that don’t have stand your ground), as it relieve a shooter of any duty to do anything other than shoot the fucker that invades his house. No need to retreat or anything else… You just shoot.
Dennis, Wrong This Time August 27, 2020 at 10:00 pm – “Forgot about the “stand your ground” states, so you are right about the duty to retreat in those states. For those states with duty to retreat (a majority, I think), my comment stands.”
It is too early and there is a lot of information still to come in, but it looks like he was on the ground when he shot two of them. So he could not retreat in those cases.
I think he will be charged and he will probably be convicted. But I don’t think he did anything wrong – or illegal. After all, he was just taking part in one of those citizen patrols the BLM wants to replace the police with.
Dennis, I have to part company with you on your second point. Having a weapon helps keep the protest peaceful. Like the couple in St Louis displaying weapons to the mob outside their house. Businesses where the defended by armed guards don’t get looted and burned. Like a number of Korean businesses in the LA riots. It is very interesting that the Kenosha cops didn’t arrest Rittenhouse at the scene.
AIUI stand your ground laws don’t apply when you’ve initiated the violence. I don’t know if he did, but that defence will no doubt be challenged by prosecutors.
Duty to retreat is all well and good on paper, but it’s nothing more than making law makers feel good about themselves. Faced with serious threats of violence and death most people couldn’t think clearly enough to organise a safe retreat. Fight or flight has probably taken over and if they didn’t flee initially they’re unlikely to as the situation escalates.
He ran away from the first confrontation, only shooting after having had stuff thrown at him (bricks or a Molotov cocktail) and after an attempt to steal his gun.
He was assaulted whilst running away, this turned into the second confrontation where he was kicked in the head once, then a different individual, the second ‘victim’, hit him over the head with a skateboard. The third ‘victim’, the one who survived, pulled a gun on him.
The third victims friends have stated clearly on twitter that his wish was to kill the guy with the rifle.
It really is quite clear.
“He’s mixed castle doctrine with stand your ground legislation.”
A little research shows you are correct. Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground are different. South Carolina handled it coincidentally, making it seem to be one thing.
Of course.
First, please don’t address me as “sir.” I like to think I work for a living.
Second, I wrote that there is “no practical difference.” And that’s true.
Good evening.