That some guy who idolizes cops was wandering around pointing his gun at anti-cop protestors, then ended up shooting some of them?
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Lets say Bob is is constantly antagonizing his neighbour, Alex. One day Bob step toward Alex with a gun in hand, Alex freaks out and think Bob's going to kill him so he lunge toward the gun (because you can't run away from someone with a gun, bullet speed >>> person speed) but he's too slow and Bob shoot and kill him.
Based on what you wrote, Bob could 100% claim this was self defence and get away completely free of any charge. After all, the only things that matter in the case are only the very short time the incident took place, everything else is basically meaningless.
For extra point, a few days before Bob said he wish he had a gun so he could shoot Alex (but the judge doesn't allow this to be admitted in court cause it would be prejudicial).
American cops were already sporting the Punisher logo on their uniform and cars before Kyle even picked up a gun. So yeah, that totally ridiculous thing that wouldn't happen at all if Rittenhouse walks was actually already happening. Kyle is just another symptom of it.
There was a court case in Florida that finished up around the time of these shootings last year.
There was two people going to a shop (ice cream I think). They parked their cars. The gun owner starts yelling in the face of the other person. The other person pushes the gun owner away, and the gun owner falls to the ground. So the gun owner shot him.
The gun owner was given a not guilty verdict for any homicide.
So yes. The gun owner can be as antagonistic as they want and get away with it.
Hey remember that time a black woman got charged with manslaughter for having the cheek to get shot? America is a wild place y'all.
I understand one of the charges is that Rittenhouse acted excessively when shooting at someone assaulting and battering him with a deadly weapon (multiple shod foot kicks to his head) yet they state they don't know who "jump kick man" and therefore Rittenhouse's defense did not get to cross examine him.
Is this, for instance, why Rosenbaum charged? I don't think so. Rosenbaum can be seen pushing a flaming dumpster towards a gas station. Someone (Rittenhouse) uses a fire extinguisher to put the fire out. That by itself would be enough to have someone like Rosenbaum charge. After Rosenbaum charges, others attack Rittenhouse, I think, because he shot Rosenbaum: not because he was doing as you allege. What they did can be argued to be very brave: they were trying to stop an armed shooter. That too would have nothing to do with Rittenhouse pointing guns at people as you allege. But from Rittenhouse's point of view, you simply have people trying to kill him while he has the right to self defense.
It is possible you have a decision coming from the jury with only some of the charges hopelessly hung. Looking forward to hearing from them.
Even if true, is it material to this case?
Is this, for instance, why Rosenbaum charged? I don't think so. Rosenbaum can be seen pushing a flaming dumpster towards a gas station. Someone (Rittenhouse) uses a fire extinguisher to put the fire out. That by itself would be enough to have someone like Rosenbaum charge. After Rosenbaum charges, others attack Rittenhouse, I think, because he shot Rosenbaum: not because he was doing as you allege. What they did can be argued to be very brave: they were trying to stop an armed shooter. That too would have nothing to do with Rittenhouse pointing guns at people as you allege. But from Rittenhouse's point of view, you simply have people trying to kill him while he has the right to self defense.
It is possible you have a decision coming from the jury with only some of the charges hopelessly hung. Looking forward to hearing from them.
Last edited:
Disagree.
Imagine a person breaks into a house. The owner of the house attacks them, so the burglar pulls out a gun and shoots. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.
Take it back a step: imagine it's trespassing on a farm, and the farmer comes out and points a shotgun at them, so the trespasser shoots them. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.
Take it back a step: imagine there's a curfew and someone goes out to riot and brings their gun. While rioting, someone tries to beat them with a skateboard, so they shoot the attacker dead. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.
I guarantee you agree with at least the first one above. I don't believe that you think the circumstances are irrelevant in principle, I think you just find his particular circumstances agreeable, and I really don't think you should. All the stuff about being a medic and doing first aid and protecting property does not change the fact that he broke curfew to attend a riot. He wasn't destroying things himself, but his presence still contributed to the violence (before the shooting) because that's how riots work. It's not that black rights activists and sports fans are exceptionally violent; violent people are violent, and any crowd at night is sufficient cover set things on fire and likely get away with it. If you go to a place where rioting is happening, particularly when the police have explicitly told people to stay home, you are a rioter. If you carry a gun, you are a rioter with a gun. Should a rioter with a gun get to claim self-defense if someone tries to fight them while rioting? I don't think so.
I agree, saying that any time you are armed you are hunting *is* wacky nonsense.
However, the defense didn't say Rittenhouse was always hunting when armed - because the law doesn't actually require he be hunting. If he *were* hunting then he'd have been under additional requirements because one of the three other laws he'd have to be in compliance with to meet the requirements under (3)(c) is about getting approval to hunt. Instead, they pointed out that "This section only applies if" the person is also not in compliance with one of three other laws, and that Rittenhouse did not violate any of those therefore that section does not apply.
It's been on the books for 30 years, and more or less no one has had a serious issue with it working the way it does, before now. They haven't been ignoring part (3)(c) prior to now, they've been enforcing it as written. There just aren't a lot of scenarios where it's specifically a 17 year old with a long rifle and said 17 year old is not hunting without a license that have come up. This case might just give them the impetus to do something about that.
The 1st guy accosted Kyle, Kyle tried to flee, someone else fired a shot, Kyle turned and 1st guy was within 4 feet and going for Kyle's gun. 1st guy had soot on his hand from the rifle suggesting his hand was on or within inches of the end of the rifle barrel when it was fired.
The 2nd guy hit Kyle with his skateboard after Kyle ended up on the ground. It really comes down to whether or not it's reasonable for Kyle to have perceived it as someone planning to cause him great bodily harm or death in the moment. Out of the shootings, I feel like this is the one least likely to get away with the self defense argument. It all depends on how much of a threat the jury feels a reasonable person would have felt in that scenario.
The 3rd guy is the one I used to think was the least defensible until he testified about pointing the gun at Kyle.
You mean you don't consider the names of his social media profiles or that he plays *gasp* first person shooter video games to be vital evidence in whether or not his shooting was self defense?
Why are you ignoring all of the explanations of the laws and how they work that we've gone over in this thread?
Yes. You don't get to cry crocodile tears for killing someone with a gun when that was apparently your intent all along.
Was it his intent all along? He did not shoot anyone until he himself was in deadly danger. He states on video that he is there to help people, which may require him to go into harm's way, hence the show of arms to ward off any who might attack him. As opposed to illegally possessing a concealed hand gun.
Yeah but it doesn't count. Its always "show me another one". The current right-wing lunatic with a gun walking around pretending to be a cop never counts towards the increasing number of right-wing lunatics with guns walking around pretending to be cops.
Same with school shootings. We always have to wait for the next one, because the usual suspects always think up a reason why this current threat isn't part of a trend.
We can, and did, point to the Charlottesville protestors chanting "Jews will not replace us" as evidence of right-wing anti-Semitic rallies in America, and the usual suspects demanded we show them another one, that one doesn't count.
If you're dumb enough to give such a hypothetical person the excuse they need, as opposed to just letting em stay frustrated and un-assaulted, you are also in the wrong though. That's the point. Nobody's saying he should be given a boyscout badge for this.
Well. If this thing ever ends, we'll be able to get back to what we really would rather be doing.
From @Specter Von Baren
From @Specter Von Baren
Was that before jury or not? I couldn't live with myself letting a murderer go away in this kind of situation...
Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty in Kenosha shootings
Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges after testifying he acted in self-defense in the deadly Kenosha, Wisconsin, shootings that became a flashpoint in the nation’s debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice.
apnews.com
"After the jury departed, Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards told the judge he feared such a move would lead to jurors looking things up in the dictionary or doing their own research at home."
So apparently both sides lawyer aren't exactly the brightest bulb. Can't possibly have the jury think over their decision and get informed on the law involved in the case they're asked to decide.
Last edited:
I read an opinion piece that put forward the idea that Judge Schroeder entire song and dance this trial has been him auditioning to be a go-to guest for Jeanine Pirro on Fox.
Banning MSNBC on odd grounds that may or may not have happened the way he described, inappropriate Asian jokes, the murdered can't be called victims only rioters, not knowing how 4K Tv and Apple iPads work, old conservative angry white guy who likes guns. He's perfect.
He getting 25 years?
Man sentenced for shooting at party at ice cream shop
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WTXL) - A Tallahassee man will spend the next 25 years in prison after he was found guilty on two counts of second degree attempted murder.
www.wtxl.com
It's really simple, you can only be armed under 18 if you're hunting, training in the military, or at a target range. So by being out with a gun he has to be saying he's doing one of those three.