Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or self defense ?

^

He “Moved away” From that area, because the police ordered him to. He was in trouble the second he crossed state lines with an assault rifle.

Originally Posted by beachbound

Bullshit. Post the news report, or video that proves this happened.
before he murdered the first guy, the only aggression towards him was when someone threw a plastic bag at him.

I already posted proof of this earlier in the thread ! And I will again

Originally Posted by beachbound

^

He “Moved away” From that area, because the police ordered him to. He was in trouble the second he crossed state lines with an assault rifle.

Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Rittenhouse


Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Rittenhouse
WHAT HAPPENED?


The Rittenhouse case isn’t a whodunit. Bystander video captured most of the shootings.
It shows an unarmed Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse into the parking lot of a used car dealership. At one point, Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag (*home made gas bomb) at Rittenhouse before the two move off-camera and Rittenhouse fires the fatal shots at around 11:45 p.m.


Soon after, Rittenhouse is seen running down a street away from the scene with several protesters on his heels. He falls. Huber appears to strike him in the head and neck area with a skateboard; Rittenhouse shoots Huber, striking him in the heart.


Seconds later, Gaige Grosskreutz steps toward Rittenhouse holding a pistol. Rittenhouse shoots him, badly injuring Grosskreutz’s arm. Rittenhouse then gets to his feet and leaves the scene.



Rittenhouse’s attorneys say he came to Kenosha not to hurt anyone but to protect businesses from damage and looting. And they say the people he shot left him no choice.

They’re expected to highlight Rosenbaum’s pursuit of Rittenhouse, and Huber and Grosskreutz subsequently coming at him. The defense has said Rosenbaum and Huber tried to wrest Rittenhouse’s rifle away, leading Rittenhouse to fear he would be shot with his own weapon.

WHAT DOES WISCONSIN LAW SAY ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE?


It allows someone to use deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” And it sets a two-part test for jurors.

First, they have to decide if Rittenhouse really believed he was in peril.


Next, they must determine if Rittenhouse’s belief was objectively “reasonable.” To make that call, jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.

Originally Posted by Backspin

I already posted proof of this earlier in the thread ! And I will again

There’s no recording of anyone saying “kill that motherfucker.“
That’s just you posting bullshit, in a lame attempt to support your pathetic defense of this murderer.

Originally Posted by Backspin

WHAT DOES WISCONSIN LAW SAY ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE?


It allows someone to use deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” And it sets a two-part test for jurors.

First, they have to decide if Rittenhouse really believed he was in peril.


Next, they must determine if Rittenhouse’s belief was objectively “reasonable.” To make that call, jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.

A bit difficult claiming self defence when you are the aggressor in the scenario.

Originally Posted by beachbound

There’s no recording of anyone saying “kill that motherfucker.“
That’s just you posting bullshit, in a lame attempt to support your pathetic defense of this murderer.

I think there is some rough audio of it that I'll find. And eye witness statements saying that's what they heard.

Originally Posted by Troy

A bit difficult claiming self defence when you are the aggressor in the scenario.

So you are completely denying that Rosenbaum ran after , cornered and got within reaching distance of Rittenhouse, as reported by the NY Times ?

Do you think the video and still shots showing Rosenbaum running after , cornering and getting to within reaching distance are fake and CGI or something ?

Originally Posted by Backspin

there is some rough audio

you are completely full of shit. There’s audio of someone saying “he just shot that motherfucker.“, Referring to Rittenhouse killing the first man.
Again, you just making up shit, try to validate your lame-ass argument.

Shut

the fuck



up

Originally Posted by Backspin

So you are completely denying that Rosenbaum ran after , cornered and got within reaching distance of Rittenhouse, as reported by the NY Times ?

Do you think the video and still shots showing Rosenbaum running after , cornering and getting to within reaching distance are fake and CGI or something ?

I am saying that Rittenhousr was the one armed with an assault rifle in a public area. That makes him the aggressor and therefore claiming self defence is going to be a tad tricky.
He should never have been there in the first place.

Originally Posted by beachbound

you are completely full of shit. There’s audio of someone saying “he just shot that motherfucker.“, Referring to Rittenhouse killing the first man.
Again, you just making up shit, try to validate your lame-ass argument.

Shut

the fuck



up

Fuck you there isn't. I'll find it.

The whole fucking case is based around 2 altercations.

-Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse had an altercation earlier in the night when Rittenhouse was with his group and around the gas station

-As Rosenbaum left that area, he said to Rittenhouse, "If I see you again, I will kill you"

-Rittenhouse leaves that area and goes walking around by himself

-Rosenbaum does indeed, spot him again, starts running after him and yelling at him.

Originally Posted by Troy

I am saying that Rittenhousr was the one armed with an assault rifle in a public area. That makes him the aggressor and therefore claiming self defence is going to be a tad tricky.

Between you and me, Troy:

If someone started chasing me unarmed, whereas I possesed a deadly weapon; I would start feeling somewhat insecure.

The possibility that the unarmed guy is fucking nuts, wouldn't take me a split second, to figure out.

A game of "chicken" that couldn't end well.

Originally Posted by Troy

He should never have been there in the first place.

Ofcourse not

Originally Posted by helge

Between you and me, Troy:

If someone started chasing me unarmed, whereas I possesed a deadly weapon

And between you and the rest of the world, if you got yourself a weapon purposely built to kill and drove hours over state lines to join a protest which didn't affect you . . . well, we will stop there because normal people without an agenda wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Backspasm

Fuck you there isn’t. I’ll find it.

I’ll be here, waiting with bated breath.

Originally Posted by Backspasm

The whole fucking case is based around the murder of two unarmed people.

FTFY, Backspasm


The facts of the case are, a guy traveled illegally across state lines with assault rifle, and shot and killed two unarmed people. All that other bullshit you keep spewing about “his life was threatened“ or someone said,
“ kill that motherfucker“, is crap the defense team is putting out there to muddy the waters.

Originally Posted by helge

Try to understand my point

Understood and underscored

Originally Posted by panama hat

And between you and the rest of the world, if you got yourself a weapon purposely built to kill and drove hours over state lines to join a protest which didn't affect you . . . well, we will stop there because normal people without an agenda wouldn't.

No. Not between you are the rest of the fucking world. Let the rest of the world speak for itself.

If the roles were reveresed , and some completely mad Proud Boy started chasing and tried to wrestle a loaded gun out of the hand of an Antifa person , and the Antifa shot him , you'd be singing the precisely opposite tune.

There was illegal guns all over the street that night. Both sides had them

Originally Posted by beachbound

I’ll be here, waiting with bated breath.




FTFY, Backspasm


The facts of the case are, a guy traveled illegally across state lines with assault rifle, and shot and killed two unarmed people. All that other bullshit you keep spewing about “his life was threatened“ or someone said,
“ kill that motherfucker“, is crap the defense team is putting out there to muddy the waters.

The laws of self defense are not subject to the legality of the weapon !

There was guns of questionable legality all over the place that night. Handguns , long guns , assault rifles , you name it. This didn't happen in Canada.

Imagine that. A simple self defense case. But the guys gun license was a couple days expired. Oh, now you are a murderer because your gun lic was expired. Holy f

Here we go

Read more: Can Use Of Illegally Carried Gun Harm Claim Of Self-Defense? LOSD Question of the Week
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Classic Self-Defense: Illegal Weapon Should Not Matter
From a classical self-defense perspective, whether the weapon used in self-defense is lawfully possessed doesn’t really matter. The five core elements of self-defense – innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness – don’t make any reference whatever to the legality or illegality of one’s defensive weapon.

^
You pathetic tool. You’re obsessed with finding anything that justifies Rittenhouse murdering two unarmed people.

Stick to the facts Backspasm, and stop with the hearsay.

Backspit, i thought we had agreed you would just read the threads where the adults are talking?

For a laugh, i just looked at the Chauvin thread. Man. Did you call that wrong.

Problem is, the American legal system is like 3D-chess, and you are more of a "snap" kinda guy.

Lets see. "I will kill you". Freedom of speech is a first amendment right and hence protected. Unless it is a "true threat". In this specific case was its use protected or not?

Self defense does not apply in cases of provocation. Was Rittenhouse being provocative in marching around with an illegal weapon?

After the first shooting Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" who should have turned himself in to the police immediately. It was within the rights of the second two people shot to apprehend an armed active shooter.

Each of these points (and many more) will be argued and debated and balanced. It is impossible to predict the answer until all arguments have been presented and considered in light of existing laws.

So, the up shot of this is be a good boy and fuck off eh?

You really do not understand what is going on.

Seems that socal's vociferous defense of Rittenhouse is mostly based on him recognising a fellow frightened little boy.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Seems that socal's vociferous defense of Rittenhouse is mostly based on him recognising a fellow frightened little boy.

What's the term for people like Skidmark . . . bate cup? Umm . . . beta cup? Oh, so close . . .

Originally Posted by panama hat

beta cup?