Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Our right wing/gun nut friends are forgetting that this absurdly low standard only applies to police in the line of duty. Self defense threshold is much higher for a civilian. “Feelings” don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

except maybe he was being chased because he threatened someone. and your right to self defense does not extend to shooting into crowds with your illegal weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

LOL um no. He would need to positively identify a weapon on the chaser to be able to make a self defense claim. Just hearing gun shots in the distance isn’t a standard to base a self defense claim for a civilian. A police officer could probably get away with that argument tho, since it’s a drastically lower threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

The video of the parking lot first shooting shows the guy that got shot in the head chasing and throwing a flaming object while Kyle is retreating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

It’s not an important question. Under Wisconsin law, the moment he turned his back and retreated his right to self-defense resets.

You start a fight: no right to self defense
You start a fight and run away and the other person runs away: no right to self defense
You start a fight and clearly run away and the other person chases you down: you now have a right to justified self defense

Maybe people are stretching to excuse the shooter’s actions but equally interesting is how quickly the anti-prison/abolish police movement gives zero benefit of the doubt the moment the shooter is out of the preferred in group and now everybody is in favor of locking him up for as long as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

It’s not an important question. Under Wisconsin law, the moment he turned his back and retreated his right to self-defense resets.

You start a fight: no right to self defense
You start a fight and run away and the other person runs away: no right to self defense
You start a fight and clearly run away and the other person chases you down: you now have a right to justified self defense

Maybe people are stretching to excuse the shooter’s actions but equally interesting is how quickly the anti-prison/abolish police movement gives zero benefit of the doubt the moment the shooter is out of the preferred in group and now everybody is in favor of locking him up for as long as possible.

Yes, I do not extend the benefit of the doubt to people that knowingly travel to a volitile area, with an illegal gun, breaking curfew and find themselves in an altercation. This is not someone who respects the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

It’s not an important question. Under Wisconsin law, the moment he turned his back and retreated his right to self-defense resets.

You start a fight: no right to self defense
You start a fight and run away and the other person runs away: no right to self defense
You start a fight and clearly run away and the other person chases you down: you now have a right to justified self defense

Maybe people are stretching to excuse the shooter’s actions but equally interesting is how quickly the anti-prison/abolish police movement gives zero benefit of the doubt the moment the shooter is out of the preferred in group and now everybody is in favor of locking him up for as long as possible.

What is he doing there with a gun? He has no interest or ties to the community. He is just a thug looking for trouble and found it. Now his live is over because he believe trump and people like you. He is going to get the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

Precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_Jr.

Defense of others is permissible to use force. They teach this in law school.

The kid was running away and posed zero imminent threat to those or others around at the time they attacked him.

He fired multiple bullets indiscriminately. Yes, he was a threat.

Not from what I see in the video. The kid only shoots people who are assaulting him. One of which had an illegal handgun of his own.

Why are we saying the third victim's gun is illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

Correct. It was a plastic bag with something non-heavy in it. Had it been on fire, the plastic bag would have burned up. But it's seen afterward in videos sitting on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not from what I see in the video. The kid only shoots people who are assaulting him. One of which had an illegal handgun of his own.

This. Surely the illegal handgun guy should be up on charges. I wonder if this was the person who fired in the air while chasing just before the first victim lunged at the Kyle.

Why did this criminal cross state lines in the first place?

17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse-Lewis’ mom Wendy drove him and his AR-15 rifle from Antioch, IL to Kenosha WI to “defend” businesses that he does not own from riots. He ended up shooting 3 people, 2 died and 1 lost his arm.

That has not been confirmed. Multiple sources say he drove himself.

What we know:
Kyle Rittenhouse (aka Kyle Lewis) is 17 years old from Antioch, IL.
His parents are separated or divorced.
His father is a police officer and gave the gun as a gift to his son.
He transported the gun across state lines, not for a lawful reason.
In both Illinois and Wisconsin, the legal carrying age is 18.
He was out past curfew at 8pm, had been warned to withdraw and did not.
He is currently detained in Antioch, IL without bond
He has a hearing tomorrow/Friday to rule on extradition to WI.
In WI, the prosecutor is planning to charge him with first degree homicide.
He was recorded having shot at least three individuals, two of whom died.

Outside of these, there are lots of uncorroborated reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

After he shot the first victim, he started running again. I'd be really shocked if he didn't claim he was fleeing in fear for his life.