Judge will allow Kyle Rittenhouse's defense to refer to the men he shot as 'rioters,' 'looters,' or 'arsonists' at trial
Category: News & Politics
Via: jeremy-in-nc • 3 years ago • 447 commentsBy: Michelle Mark and Haven Orecchio-Egresitz
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Wisconsin judge ruled Monday that Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team is free to refer to the men he shot as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" during the teenager's upcoming trial — so long as they provide evidence.
Rittenhouse, 18, is charged with fatally shooting two men and injuring a third amid civil unrest in August 2020 following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense, saying he opened fire on Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz because they were chasing him.
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder issued the ruling after prosecutors had argued that Rittenhouse's lawyers should be banned from using "pejorative terms" to describe Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.
Schroeder's decision on Monday was part of a broader hearing laying out the ground rules of Rittenhouse's trial, which is set to begin on November 1.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had argued in a recent motion that Rittenhouse's lawyers should be banned from using the terms, since prosecutors will be banned from referring to the dead or injured men as "victims."
But Schroeder disagreed, saying the two scenarios were not the same. It's common for judges across the country to ban the word "victim" during trials , because it implies that a crime was committed and could therefore prejudice a jury against a defendant.
But since Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are not the ones on trial, Rittenhouse's defense team is free to describe them as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" so long as they provide evidence that the men were rioting, looting, or committing arson, Schroeder said.
Grosskreutz, the only survivor, has not been charged with rioting, looting, arson, or any other crime in connection to the Kenosha protests.
"He can demonize him if he wants, if he thinks he'll score points with the jury," Schroeder told prosecutors, referring to Rittenhouse's defense lawyer.
He added that prosecutors are similarly free to use their own harsh terms to describe Rittenhouse, such as "cold-blooded killer," so long as they back up those terms with evidence.https://www.insider.com/kyle-rittenhouse-judge-allows-defense-to-use-terms-rioters-looters-2021-10
Tags
Who is online
587 visitors
That's going to piss off a lot of people.
“…used a semiautomatic rifle that resembles the made-for-the-military AR-15.”
… but NBC News has no problem using perjoratives to say ‘gun’.
Good!
Rittenhouse is a cold blooded little killer scumbag thug conservative in training.
Of course he is, he should have just laid there and take his beating from the rioters and arsonists.
You're just making stuff up.
… so he gets a fair hangin, right?
No doubt with the shortest rope possible..
Democrats would pull the lever, eh?
Judge Will Allow Kyle Rittenhouse's Defense To Refer To The Men He Shot As 'Rioters,' 'Looters,' Or 'Arsonists' At Trial
But the killer is lying.
Like Rittenhouse you have to prove it.
That's the purpose of the trial. To get to the truth and hand out punishment as needed.
Truth is he's a little conservative right wing domestic terrorist killer in training.
Just like the prosecutors you still need to prove it.
It's true. I don't have to prove DICK.
Again, your proof would be where?
See 3.2.3
Nothing there.
I'd rather see what was posted in 3.2.4
No you wouldn't
I'm not the subject of this 'article' sparky and all you other [deleted]
[deleted]
I saw an interesting tweet that noting that the people who get their news from the msm are going to be so surprised and angry when he is found not guilty.
the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened.
"the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened."
Of course it has. The liberal left controlled media would not have it any other way. They and those who believe what is said actively try to stomp on anything that does not exactly match their particular political narratives. The young man may indeed be guilty, but I prefer to wait until the jury verdict comes out rather than trying and convicting in the court of public opinion like some people here are doing.
So you approve of vigilantism? Because Mr. Rittenhouse was not defending his home or property - he didn't live in Wisconsin but in Illinois - so he loaded himself with lots & lots of "arms" and took a road trip to do what? He went to SHOOT people. If you think it is ok for people to just go to some random town and start shooting people you are fucking NUTS.
and is not vigilantism , the act of taking matters of law into ones own hands , and not having the authorized authorities handle the situation?
and how does , the actions of those that were shot differ from what the Kenosha Kid ?
Did they not also take matters into their own hands without authority and their actions further ignite the situation to the end we saw ?
As we see , all actions have consequences , just be sure one is up to face them .
Bullshit. He went to stop people from doing the rioting, looting, and burning shit to the ground. Over zealous? Yep. Nothing more.
Exactly.
YOU ARE CORRECT Veronica. He didn't go to stop anyone from doing anything - he just went to shoot people - like the good little republican in training he is.
I'm not saying it is, but does that make it OK for him to go there & shoot people? So the consequences these people should have faced is some asshole pretend cowboy with NO authority to go there & shoot them. Is that how you REALLY want the country to be - Old West Style? What a bunch of shit. I am sure if you were speeding you wouldn't want some asshole to pull up alongside you & shoot you, would you. After all you were breaking the law & speeding is dangerous & could kill people... Do you get it yet?
Soo, I have jj on ignore, so I am assuming that is his response you quoted.
Overzealous???? That is what he is calling shooting people? And by whose authority did he shoot these people? Does that mean I can pull up alongside jj if he is speeding & shoot him? I am only being overzealous since speeding is dangerous & can lead to deaths.
What a bunch of spewed bullshit these people are spouting. They wouldn't be so lenient if this person had shot and killed someone in their family.
So you are cheering on some kind of vigilante justice?
"Soo, I have jj on ignore, so I am assuming that is his response you quoted.
(What a good idea Veronica - I don't waste my time responding to certain posters)
Overzealous???? That is what he is calling shooting people? And by whose authority did he shoot these people? Does that mean I can pull up alongside jj if he is speeding & shoot him? I am only being overzealous since speeding is dangerous & can lead to deaths.
What a bunch of spewed bullshit these people are spouting. They wouldn't be so lenient if this person had shot and killed someone in their family."
Yeah, calling a scumbag little killer republican in training - who killed innocent people - who weren't doing anything other than protesting - overzealous . . . . .
(chuckling ) well the prosecution is going to have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt he went there simply to shoot people . Like a few here are stating and cannot prove .
Funny thing is i have seen no reporting since the incident on exactly what this kids connection to the town is . absent that , its all supposition .
being where he lived and kenosha is only a 20 to 30 min car ride , is it possible he has relations in town? what about a girlfriend or girlfriends family that said they needed help?
has not been reported and we are not privy to that info at this time .
Now if you are asking me , if i got wind of some civil unrest by a certain group of individuals , would i sit out on my front porch with a shot gun and some popcorn to watch what goes down and make sure my property were not maliciously damaged? bet your 3rd point of contact i would .
what i can and cant do depends entirely on where i happen to be , and thats something i understand , that many dont .
but thats about as "old west style" as i would go . and it does not mean i wouldnt defend myself from those that think they have the right to do things they aught not .
Nope. The kid thought he was superman and decided to go play John Wayne and got in over his overly zealous head and found himself in a situation he was not ready for. Vigilante I don't believe was in his "plan". he thought his mere presence would be enough to stop people. He was wrong and ended up having to defend himself.
See 10.1 below for facts that at least one person on here found.
You cannot compare sitting on your porch to someone running in the street.
Not the same.
Obviously - this punk is just a republican cold blooded killer in training.
What a made up bunch of bullshit! Where'd you pull all that garbage from?
I don't need his loaded version. I have seen the video.
Maybe you should contact a Conservative news outlet & get them to report on it then. After all those are the only ones that are factual (sarcasm).
To be honest so would my hubby, I have no issue with that. That is yours. And our home is ours, but we are not driving 20 to 30 minutes from our home going into a street & shooting people.
I just hope that all the facts are conveyed in court and that justice is served.
"You cannot compare sitting on your porch to someone running in the street.
Not the same."
Look at all the other bullshit made up scenarios!
No because to pull up along side me you yourself would be speeding and if you shot me it would lead to death. Your argument doesn't hold water...........LMMFAO
as do I
In the video's is could be said he was defending himself.
And you have proof of his intent where? Has it been turned over to law enforcement? Or is this your opinion.
You mean like the scenario that the shooting happened during a "protest"?
Or how about the scenario where he is a right wing domestic terrorist.
Or the hilarious scenario where the media reporting was truthful?
the fact i use to travel 2 hrs to visit my future wife at the time i was close to that age ....and i remember what the male hormones are capable of at that age , even if i am not subject to their affect any longer .
It's all nonsense. Ignorant nonsense.
never said it was the same .
look at all the bs scenarios? like yours ? to get a predetermined outcome?
I never said you said it was the same thing.
I didn't make up any scenarios - I've told the truth - unlike the alleged conservatives here.
You will never convince the ammosexuals here that Rittenhouse was wrong in what he did. Hopefully the jury will render the proper sentence and put that POS in a cell, throw away the key, and then throw away the cell.
No, I do not approve of vigilantism. I said nothing of what you said. Please reread my post before attempting to put words in my mouth. My point was that court of law will determine his guilt or innocence and I prefer to wait until the court's verdict. Nothing more, nothing less. Have a good day.
Your not a vigilante when someone is attacking YOU!!!!
Heehee - but you have to get jabs in "left leaning media" as if anything on media is truth anymore. Man up & admit that you are biased because of "left leaning media". Would you believe the reports from Fox news?
So I can shoot someone that is speeding? Or someone that gets in their car drunk?
Oh, yeah...............
equals this 
SMMFH
Well........I guess you can, you'll probably go to jail, maybe for the rest of your life.
"You will never convince the ammosexuals here that Rittenhouse was wrong in what he did. Hopefully the jury will render the proper sentence and put that POS in a cell, throw away the key, and then throw away the cell."
Yup just another right wing domestic terrorist for the cause - like Babbitt. They went looking to terrorize and only one of them didn't get away with it - at least not yet.
(What a good idea Veronica - I don't waste my time responding to certain posters)
Why would you put on blinders and earmuffs to join a discussion? You didn’t come to exchange points of view - that’s just pissing on the couch.
I think this may be a defining theme of our time. We have a number of people in this country who believe that you should not be subject to the consequences of your actions if they were done as some sort of statement that aligns with their political doctrine.
We all know what happens to men who look for trouble. They find it. They have nobody to blame, and no excuse to make.
None of these people should have been there. There really isn't any excuse for a kid who drives into another state with his AR looking for trouble. Neither is there any excuse for any of these assholes to be torching this town.
When you're participating in a riot...and you see some guy running down the street with an AR-15... run the other way. Under no circumstances should you run toward him and attempt to cave his head in with your skateboard. You really can't complain when you get shot under those circumstances.
Similarly, when you drive to another state with an assault rifle looking to engage people you disagree with politically...and then you shoot several of them.. you can't really complain when they send your ass to prison, even if it's not for murder.
[removed]
This liberal owns a few firearms but never considered myself an "ammosexual".
Haven't even shot one of them in a month of Sundays.
Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year old fanboy of right wing "patriotism", traveled across state lines in order to take part in a militia defense of private businesses in Kenosha Wisconsin. He brought an AR-15 style rifle with him.
After hooking up so to speak with on site militia he was given a station in front of a warehouse or something to stand guard over. As time went on he grew bored with the fact that he wasnt seeing any action and wandered off down the road to get closer to where the action (BLM protests) was. In the course of a period of time he jackassed, displayed his weapon to intimidate protesters, and was in turn mocked and teased by protesters. At some point he got engaged in a foot chase with some protesters , which ended up out of view from cameras and after some sort of struggle he shot and killed a guy. He was then chased down the street by other protesters, one of which hit him with a skateboard and then Rittenhouse shot and killed that guy and shot another guy.
I have doubts they will convict him of murder, I seriously doubt if there is evidence against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
But this punk is not "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination. He went to Kenosha looking for "action" . He was given a post to protect property and he left that post to go to where it was more exciting. He was looking to instigate himself into a situation where he could be a big man and wave his weapon around and act like Rambo.
It is a shame that some people want to defend his actions.
Thank you so much for the facts of the matter John! Don't see it anywhere else from the alleged conservatives.
He was being chased by protesters. That's not disputed. Why would you phrase that so oddly?
a shame that some people want to defend his actions.
It's a shame some people think kids should be accused of murder to fit their political narrative.
I'm not defending Rittenhouse's choice to be there.
I'm defending the rule of law. The evidence is overwhelming he was not the aggressor. There is no law that says you have to let yourself be assaulted by a violent mob. He did the right thing to to deescalate the situation by tying to run away (so much for the "he wanted to shoot people narrative) and he was attacked by a looter. No honest person would say he wasn't reasonably afraid for his life when he pulled the trigger.
Thanks for the facts of the matter Sean.
So according to you, he fired his weapon into the crowd to deescalate the situation and then people started chasing him.
Not a great defense....
Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. He wanted to intimidate unarmed protesters with his AR-15 weapon. On what possible authority was he doing that? He's not law enforcement. He's nobody.
In both instances where he shot people he was able to "defend himself" precisely because he was carrying a high powered weapon.
So someone hit him with a skateboard. That is a reason to shoot to kill? The only reason he was able to shoot to kill is because he had the weapon on him. If he didnt have the weapon he wouldnt have got into any trouble. We have police and national guard that protect citizens and property. We shouldnt have deluded 17 year old punks on the streets trying to play Rambo or John Wayne.
Illegally...
Not at all. He only fired his weapon after the child molester started chasing him, right as a shot appears to have been fired at him, and the molester who was chasing him reached for his gun.
So firing a weapon into a crowd is a way to deescalate a situation??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
No facts provided whatsoever. So no thanks should be offered.
If this little republican killer in training was being chased - it was because he just shot an innocent person in cold blood
he brought it ? or it was already there?
see it was initially reported it was already there ( possible straw purchase maybe?)when he got there , which would lead one to think he had a connection there.
So did you not read 10.1?
So, anyone who carries a gun is asking to be attacked and loses the right to self defense?
stances where he shot people he was able to "defend himself" precisely
yeah, that's the point of carrying a gun and using it in self defense.
If he didnt have the weapon he wouldnt have got into any trouble.
And if no rioters had attacked him, no one would have been shot.
tWe shouldnt have deluded 17 year old punks on the streets trying to play Rambo or John Wayne. ers attacked him, no one would have been shot.
John Wayne or Rambo usually don't run away like he did when someone attacks them.
No it wasn't already there. The little republican killer in training bought the gun with him - and mommy took him.
He has no connection there. The gun was not already there. He just wanted to prove to be the good little republican killer in training that he is.
Also, there are no facts to be found in comment 10.1
So we have one of you all saying we didn't see the first shooting as there seems to be no video of it. Now you are saying others were chasing him, I guess for no reason.
So which is it? I am getting different scenarios from all of you.
If there was no video of the first shooting...
I swear, some are bending over backwards to protect the murderer.
We all know for a fact if someone shot some right wing people like that, the right wing would already have the gallows set up.
"I swear, some are bending over backwards to protect the murderer."
As usual - whenever it is a republican killing innocent folks. What else is new?
The only evidence is the video.
Why do you keep calling someone a child molester? Was he trying to molest Rittenhouse, who was after all a child at the time he shot three people?
Maybe we haven’t seen all of the video.
So you cant explain why he was carrying a gun to a protest scene, and acting like he was in authority, when he is not law enforcement or military.
He needs no explanation for his presence there.
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint (wisconsinrightnow.com)
Which has nothing to do with him being shot by this cold blooded right wing thug.
[deleted]
He was not even legally entitled to own the firearm he used. That alone should get him a few years as Bubba's bitch.
What was he suppose to do John? FYI not be there is not an answer..
Sure it is - he had no authority to be there waving a gun around. If I see a gun waving around I would think that was a threat - would you?
First of all, he should not have been in Kenosha, where he did not live, during a riot. Second , he should not have been carrying a gun. He's not law enforcement or military. Third, once he was there with his gun he should have stayed in front of the business where some militia guy gave him to stand guard and not decide to go somewhere else where he could hear something was going on.
He had no authority to do anything, but once he was there he should have minded his own business and stayed in front of the building they told him to guard.
Who said he owned it? You don't have to own a firearm to use a firearm in the country in which I live..........................
Prove it!
Huh...every video I saw Rittenhouse was being CHASED by the rioters.
What would you suggest, "Bad Language".
Hate to sound callous, but if you are dumb enough to attack someone with a gun, you deserve what you get.
If the rioters would have stayed home in their Mom's basement they would be alive today.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
oh, so NOW it was a riot, like we were telling you on day one.
What right do you have to tell people where they can and can not go in America?
Do you really believe that only Kenosha residents were there rioting?
Says who.....you.
I sure as hell wouldn't chase him !!!!!!!!!
So you think a 17 year old should have walked into an area where there was civil turmoil armed with a deadly weapon ?
[deleted]
[deleted] What authority did he have to be there? Was he a police officer? Was he military? Or was he just a fucking nutjob waving a gun around?
We all know the answer to that.
What...just rioters can be from out of town?
The dumbasses that elected to chase him had "no authority" as well.
they didnt shoot anybody
[deleted]
What authority did the RIOTERS have to be there.
What part of you don't chase people and try to do bodily injury don't you understand. If people are so fucking stupid to chase and attack someone with a firearm they deserve what they get.
One guy was planning to, fortunately Rittenhouse is a good shot.
"One guy was planning to, fortunately Rittenhouse is a good shot."
How the fuck could you know that?
You don't.
That is one of the most stupid fucking things you have said and you have offered up some real whoppers.
The dumbass with the gun a little bit away from the dumbass with the skateboard. See the photos at 14.2.41.
Ahhhhh....its on the video, maybe you should watch it.
Why is it stupid? It is what occurred FFS
actually he COULD own it , he just couldnt buy it himself .
Tell me......what should you do when you are being attacked and beaten?
4th - He was not legally able to possess that firearm. I understand that mommy gave it to him. LOCK HER UP!
Yeah well ..... rioting, looting and arson isn't legal either. Lock up all those moms and grandma's that let their little hipsters leave the basement to do all that illegal shit.
I'm sure the [deleted] in stir would love them some hipster mom and grandma as well.
I really hate it when people assume dumbfuck things about me.
No where did I say that he should have been there, I said YOU don't have the right to decide where people can and can not go.
He had as much right to be there as any of the people looting and rioting and committing arson.
What authority is NEEDED for Americans to travel freely?
have the progressive liberals managed to pass something regarding THAT, too?
So you think chasing someone armed with a rifle is SMART???????????????????????????????????
First, it wasn't a "protest scene"; rioting, looting, arson, and assault are not acceptable forms of protest. You also forgot to mention some of those not so peaceful protesters were also armed- unless carrying a pistol to a protest is acceptable?
In my neck of the woods help is hours away
I wonder what the response of the left would have been if the rioter with the handgun chasing the young man had fired at at and hit Rittenhouse first? Would they still be vilifying Rittenhouse as the instigator just for carrying a AR 15 style weapon? Probably so.
Those who claimed he was guarding a car dealer is lying also - that dealer never asked this little thug/killer to guard anything.
"the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened."
No, it wasn't.
How so?
It was. You know it, I know it, and deep down just about everyone with two functioning brain cells knows it.
It was truthful.
Give me an example.
Not necessary unless you don't believe the truth - then that's on YOU.
It is necessary. There are 2 people here asking you to back up your claim.
It's true.
Documentation please.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Then I guess you have nothing. You have a good day now.
As usual, it is you and the alleged conservatives, WHO HAVE NOTHING.
I am not the one who made a statement and then could or would not back themselves up. Not on me to provide anything so the onus is on you, and I asked you very politely to do do in post # 6.1.7.
The ruling is the defendant's lawyer can use those terms IF the defense has evidence to back up those claims. I'm pretty sure the ruling can also be appealed by the prosecution.
It can’t be appealed until after the trial. Good luck on getting a not guilty verdict thrown out on that basis.
hmmm... I had to deep dive the interwebs and you are correct. Though if the prosecutors could show enough bias the case could be thrown out and retried. Again that would be a hard sell for sure. Were the defense to use the terms without evidence the prosecution will eat them alive. Also any lawyer worth their salary should be able to make anyone look like a saint without using the word victim.
in other words they ( the defense ) can call them whatever the defense has proof of , not hard with the videos and the individuals actions .
We'll see what the jury decides, if he's found guilty he won't have mommy to protect him in lock up.
If he's found not guilty I believe that he'll end up being just another loser on the street with mommy trying to protect him.
He has already been taken care of by the extremist group.
I bet if he is found innocent, we will end up seeing his name again.
His new "mommy" will be named Bubba.
And to add to this, the "rioters, looters, and arsonists" cannot be referred to as "victims". This is going to be interesting to say the least.
I think it is going to be interesting .
my prediction is 2 of the incidents will be judged as self defense,againt those shot , the guy who died wielding the skateboard , and the guy who lived and drew a handgun . the only real one in question is the very first shooting , that is the only one not on film.
have to wait and see how that one is presented and argued .
The key fact in his defense is that he ran away from the child molester who he shot first. The molester tried to take his gun from him as he fled, not to mention video seems to demonstrate a shot was fired at Rittenhouse right before he fired the first time. Given the circumstances, I think it's hard to argue that he didn't have a reasonable fear of being assaulted, after he tried to avoid the confrontation by running away.
Compare Rittenhouse to the officer who shot the unarmed woman in the capitol and this seems like an open and shut case of self defense.
differing jurisdictions , and different politics involved in both cases .
because of that , different outcomes are possible .
For sure. This is a jury trial, anything is possible. It's really a roll of the dice.
Im just glad not to be on that jury .
there would be a lot of pissed off protesters whom might like to do those things they should not .
What fact/facts?
Made up nonsense is all that is.
There is a film of the first but it doesn't show the actual shooting. It does show the moments leading up to the shooting, it shows Rittenhouse running from the guy who got shot. So there's no indication in any video that Rittenhouse was aggressive or intimidating, quite the opposite the videos show him running from confrontation and only using force in a last desperate act of self preservation and defense. The Videos make it clear the men who were shot were the aggressors and Rittenhouse wasn't even trying to stand his ground he was just trying to survive.
If I am not mistaking, there was an eye witness to the first shooting. He was stand right next to I think the guys name was Rosenbaum. He backed up Rittenhouse's story that Rosenbaum was the aggressor and attempting to take Rittenhouse's firearm when he was shot.
As do the wounds.
McGinniss is his name. He was videotaping. Comment #17 from Sean provides a link to a video where he states just that.
As it should be.
If the defense can prove they were rioting, looting or burning shit up they are allowed to call a spade a spade.
As it should be.
This little scumbag republican alleged conservative in training didn't shoot anyone who were rioting, looting, or 'burning shit up' - the little scumbag shot innocent protesters.
Wrong. The judge ruled they could not be called victims during trial. Keep up or please shut up. You're just trolling and not contributing anything including proof for your claims.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Prove it.
This little scumbag republican alleged conservative in training didn't shoot anyone who were rioting, looting, or 'burning shit up' - the little scumbag shot innocent protesters.
Not true..
Yes, it is.
Prove it
Crickets chirping...
yep!!!!
as expected, of course.
Seeing as I will not be a juror and it is doubtful that I will once again watch a trial 24-7 if it is televised, whatever wisdom I have garnered over the years tells me to stfu and leave it to those who will be directly involved. How I may personally feel about the defendant would be a travesty of justice if it were to be taken into account. The opinions on both sides are worth shit.
As long as they provide evidence...
Good luck with that.
Unless they have video of the people he shot doing something, they have nothing.
There is video of the last 2 shot both in the attack mode and in the act of drawing a weapon , both of which can be viewed as a use of deadly force before both shots were fired .
so they can be called assailants right?
Nonsense - all lies. None of the innocent protesters this little republican killer shot - had any weapons of any kind.
I have seen the video.
You think that after he shot at people others wouldn't try to stop him?
Not in the minds of those that supported the riot. Remember there are many who still refer to the events of that day as a "protest".
What does that even mean.
He doesn't know.
Read the comment I responded to (14.2 ) then read my comment.
lets see , skateboard against rifle used as a bludgeoning weapon .... knife to a gun fight mean anything?
handgun vs rifle , odds about even . just depends on who was quickest to react
leave out the fact its stated he was running TOWARDS the police to report the first incident when all this occurred .....
BTW ? how many rounds fired by him in total? so indiscriminate firing is pretty much off the table , he seems to have hit what he shot at . or there would have been a higher body count .
way i see it , 2 people interjected themselves without any authority WITH deadly force , and the results are known .
cant say as to the initial incident because it was not filmed .
Still makes no sense...
So according to you, it was only others that interjected to what he was doing?
You admit that we didn't see the first shooting yet you automatically jump to the conclusion that the guy with the skateboard was the initial aggressor.
It's all made up bullshit scenarios - no weapons of any kind for these innocent folks - who saw this republican killer in training - killing innocent people and were trying to stop him.
Where did you read that?
No matter what people are saying here, the kid intentionally took a loaded weapon to another city. In his mind, I guess, To protect some business.
He left the business, which he had no ties to, to go out and seek action.
And people are acting like he is some innocent and hunted person.
Bullshit. He got what he was looking for.
Then he seemed to have zero regret by going out and partying with an extremist group.
Yeah, stand up kid there....
Yet they defend him to the bitter end . . . it's deplorable and completely unsurprising.
Yes he was .
the video shows the kenosha kid fall , the skater dude then attacks using his skateboard edge to attack the head and neck area of the kid , then attempts with his free hand to grab the rifle which then discharges into his belly resulting in his fatal wound .
no made up BS just what the video showed . and no jumping to conclusion as to who the actual agressor was at the moment .
see ? thats why im glad im not on this jury .
work it out.
All lies - just make it up as you go along?
Yet you admit we didn't see what happened to begin with.
So we don't know if the kid was threatening them to begin with.
Not worth the time.
For reference...
[deleted]
Ya! The little republican killer in training was walking down the street with his penis substitution/extension and the cops didn't do a damned thing about it.
No talking points here - the actual truth.
He is a fatass in training.
I bet he ends up weighing three or four hundred pounds.
A fatass little bitch in training for sure! Was he on house arrest before? They would have loved his ass in prison.
Irrelevant. What were they peacefully protesting when they chased him down?
Dumbasses chased down a clearly retreating, armed man and then attacked him. Had they retreated as well it never would have happened.
They put themselves in harms way by not retreating.
He was clearly being chased and attacked...feared for his life
Did you see the video where he was at another protest and attacked a girl?
Fear for his life? He was the one with a weapon...
And murdered people...
Again, we didn't see what happened in the beginning.
No matter how you all try to frame it, he is not innocent.
Could you post it? If it really exists.
Yeah, little fatass has already had experience in domestic terrorism.
More ignorant nonsense made up shit.
Until you provide something to back up your claim, they're talking points.
He was attacked with a skateboard and the other guy there pulled a gun.
Perhaps people should explore more than one video point of view.
No matter how many times it is said it will not sink in..
the video pretty clearly shows him running and tripping , then being assaulted and an attempt to disarm him being made .
it also shows him getting into a kneeling position and firing at the individual whom was struck in the right arm with a handgun in his right hand , lefty in still images can be seen holding a handgun in his now useless right hand in agony .
the video then shows him get up and run down the street towards flashing police lights ....where he reported that shots were fired and people had been shot , to which the police left him there to respond to the shootings .
as has been reported .
Running away after shooting someone in cold blood.
So you are just going to go by what the defense team says...
So you at first say that we did not see what started this then immediately go to he was running for his life....
Skateboard wasnt being used as a deadly weapon from angle of attack?
The left hand picture is lefty , the guy shot in the arm , whats that in his right hand?
So much for these innocents being unarmed .......
he wasnt the only one armed ....
So are you going to act like he was the only one that could have a weapon?
I think I would bring it out to if I saw the kid walking toward me brandishing his...
and just how quickly can a situation change?
Fact we did not see the first incident , the video picks up with him headed in the direction of the police , he is then mobbed and attacked all from behind , by those also armed , albeit , one with an improvised weapon( idiotic to me ) , but still a deadly weapon as is shown in the still i posted , the other with a hand gun themselves , simply click on the picture and open in a new tab and one can increase the picture size , i found at 150% one can clearly id the handgun in the right hand .
video shows him continue down the street directly to the officers .
Did I claim that? Nope .
Did he shoot his weapon before? Was he antagonizing people? Was he threatening people?
As you said, we don't know.
He obviously didn't seem scared as he was casually walking away.
So what are you "going by"?
I know what I have seen in several pictures as well as video analyses.
No one was chasing him yet.
Using a little critical thinking. he shot his weapon or it was discharged in the first incident , the vid picks up with him headed in the direction of the police , then he is chased , mobbed and attacked from behind , resulting in 2-3 more discharges resulting in one belly shot and dead , and one with an arm wound , all in the direction of the attackers and in the direction he just came from . so the guy shot in the arm was behind him and the kid was not going towards him brandishing as you suppose
his jog away( not a casual stroll or walk )and to the police does appear he was no longer in fear , but then again , after shots fired and people cleared the street , there was no obvious or immenent threat any longer .
Ya! He went there hoping to shoot someone and he did.
"So you at first say that we did not see what started this then immediately go to he was running for his life...."
See, I told you that some folks here are just making shit up as they go along
EXACTLY! THANK YOU!
Again, you're making shit up as you go along and saying it's 'critical thinking'
seems , according to pictures provided, the so called "money shots " , that you are either uninformed or wrong about that conclusion .
Well........if he was walking toward you "maybe", but if you were chasing him!
LMFAO, at least im not calling him a republican killer in training , or claiming those he shot are innocent and were unarmed when they were and there is photo evidence of it , so ill take your lame and shrill comment and objections as the pot calling the kettle black .
talk about making shit up to fit what you want , you win the olympic gold medal .... with that and a buck fiddy i would let ya have a cup of coffee.
[Deleted]
He is exactly that a republican killer in training.
[Deleted]
sure i am , im only the one that posted the stills showing skateboard dude using his skateboard as an improvised weapon ( still a weapon that can cause death) , or the dude shot in the arm holding a hand gun , refuting your claims of being unarmed, or being agressive or in attack mode , that they were doing NOTHING wrong . .
i dont give a rip about what their political beliefs are , unlike you .
seems to me and only an opinion , what seems to be upsetting some , is the fact that there might be more like ritterhouse out there , and people some know or are related to , that participate in such instances and might decide to stretch or bend what they do into criminal actions, might end up facing someone like ritterhouse .
you could give me a quarter , then ild call someone who cares ......
It doesn't matter what anyone says.
They are all going to profess his innocents.
He had to walk to the place he retreated from...
The irony here...
You literally made up facts to support your dogmatic belief he must be guilty.
It is on film. He shot and killed people....
What facts did I make up?
The way I see it, the hypocrisy is oozing.
We know for a fact that if the tables were turned and it was some right wing protest, you all would be screaming bloody murder, so spare me.
No kidding. Do you imagine being on film takes away the right to self defense.
, the hypocrisy is oozing.
Yes, it is from those engage in the "he must be guilty" and I refuse to look at the evidence crowd. It's the same overzealous, emotional obsession and refusal to deal with reality we saw with Nicholas Sandmann. Rather than focus on what actually happened, we have the disturbing obsession with his weight, fantasizing about what will happen to him in prison etc. etc.. . Most of the anti Ritterhouse posts in this thread simply consist of the outright refusal to deal with the facts that hurt their dogmatic beliefs. . It's literal denial. The videos are lying. The State of Wisonsin is lying etc. And of those few that actually rise above the level of a kindergartner, the consist of false statements (he fired his gun at the crowd before the altercation), or disingenuous comparisons,
I didn't see a single post that deals with the evidence with regards to the law of self defense. Just brain dead denialism and unsupported accusations that are little better (he shot someone so he's guilty).
e know for a fact that if the tables were turned and it was some right wing protest, you all would be screaming bloody murder, so spare me.
Not at all. But you think that your projection of what others would do somehow justifies you denying reality?
What reality have I denied?
Point it out or shut up.
Absolutely, or it could be argued that they attempted to act as vigilantes.
yes it is on film , one in my opinion shows him being attacked, assaulted and defending himself from one person blugeoning him , and another drawing a firearm on him.
which is why in my first statement i said he would likely get off for those 2 shootings . like it or not .
the only question i had was the initial shooting , which more video has been provided showing the one shot was a bit of a hot head unhappy his dumpster fire was extinguished . and it looks like he wasnt going to let some young punk put out another one in the same way .
will have to wait and see what comes out in actual trial as for testimony about if the assailent that was shot tried to disarm the kid , even though being a convicted felon (which the kid had no idea of ) he was prohibitted from touching or handling ANY firearm for ANY reason.
i would suppose that in closing arguments after all this is presented these 3 will be refurred to as assailents , not victims thus taking away the prosecutions idea of painting them as innocent victims , when they had full knowledge of the consequenses of their actions , they just let their testosterone overtake rational thinking and it cost them , one their right arm , and the other 2 their lives for being vigilantes and taking those actions .
you didnt make much up , just tried to and failed to set the facts in a light better suited to a conviction , when they actually point to self defense aquittal
As far as I know, he was not supposed to have a gun either.
You have your view and I have mine.
Sadly I kinda have to agree with you though.
I bet he either gets off or not that bad of a conviction.
How in the hell could he put out a dumpster fire?
in the video sean supplied , the first shot of him running by the camera , shows what does look like a fire extinguisher in hand .
the only one in real question will be the initial incedent , but i think i fleshed that out sufficiently enough for myself to return a self defense verdict if i were on the jury , like i said , glad im not on it .
so that leaves a misdewiener weapons violation . ( yes , i did that on purpose ) as for the not even suppose to have the gun , a lot of things are suppose to be , but seldom are . fact of life .
i am left to ask myself at what age and where can a person be considered legally able to be armed and defend themselves , the answer i think is in that gray area we seldom define acutely.
If it was your kid in your house , what would the answer be ? your kid in the street being mobbed and attacked? same question .
do i think he made mistakes? he made a crap ton IMHO.
do i think he responded as any other person would if capable in the same situation? most likely .
Kind of a loaded commentary...
They showed someone that looked and was dressed exactly like the kid.
They can't tell who it was.
I think he is some idiot kid that listened to the extreme right wing commentary and wanted to act.
Are you serious? He wasnt forced into a dangerous situation, he ran into it. Defend himself? He was walking around the scene with his gun poised in front of him. He thought he was Rambo. He was BLOCKS away from the original location he was guarding. Did someone in authority ask him to go to a second location to quell rioting? I dont think so. He was a vigilante. He brought a gun to a scene of disturbance to intimidate people.
Otherwise he would have been back at the car dealership he had been guarding.
They nicest thing you can say about him is that he was a teenager who had delusions of being a hero.
Can you please point to your source for your belief that self defense doesn't apply in dangerous situations?
e was walking around the scene with his gun poised in front of him.
So that means he can be attacked and he can't defend himself?
d someone in authority ask him to go to a second location to quell rioting? I dont think so.
what does this have to with anything that happened? you think you can attack someone because they weren't directed to be somewhere by someone in authority?
The only thing that matters is what happened between the the shooter and the people he shot. And we know the arsonist Rittenhouse shot was chasing him and trying to take his gun when Rittenhouse shot him.
Out of curiosity, in your mind, is the arsonist who was setting fires (without being directed to by a person in authority) and who, after screaming racial epithets, chased Rittenhouse and tried to take his gun at fault at all?
It's amazing how none of the progressives don't have any problems with the actions of the arsonist who chased a 17 year old , but hold the kid responsible for everything.
The first thing I said on this seed is that I dont think he will be convicted , unless there is some evidence not seen yet.
He's not 'innocent'. He had absolutely no business being there. He's not a cop, he's not a soldier, and he's not Sylvester Stallone. He left the place he was guarding and went up to "the front lines".
I hope they can convict him on gun charges because he should be punished.
The idea that the society should glorify someone this reckless is mind boggling.
admittedly , yes they did show someone similarly dressed and armed, same type of weapon and color shirt. , only difference i noticed was the suspenders on one and not on the kid in other photos and the kid had a highly visible colored pack i think he called his med kit in other interviews , and the one with the suspenders didnt look like he was out of shape , the kid ..... well round is a shape isnt it?
the first guy in seans vid of the lead up to the first shooting , showed th guy your thinking of with suspenders and there seems to have been words between hot head( 1st guy killed) and that guy after his dumpster fire was put out , now did hot head make the same mistake and think the kid was the same guy as well? I dont know but its a possibility .
nice opinion piece John . But it still doesnt answer my question , now does it ?
As I said he made a crapton of mistakes i saw, one of them was even being there , but he was .
I agree he likely though he was doing something heroic .
wasnt he assigned with another to watch over the very car lot , thats what i read in the reports when it happened , and the only time he was blocks away was when he was going to the police because thats where they were .
you say he wasnt an officer or military person so had no authority and deem him a vigilante, i say those that confronted him and attempted to beat him , drew a weapon on him and tried to disarm him had no authority either and they attempted to use strong arm tactics to enforce their own vigilanteism . none of the 3 acted within the law or with authority to do so .
the smartest one was the person filming the whole thing in the run to the cops that pointed him out and simply let him go to the cops . that person was no threat or inpeadment to getting to the cops .
now skater dude and the BLM medic , can also be said to have had delusions of granduer , with their actions of assault and brandishing a firearm themselves , outside the limits of the law . they all paid for their misbeliefs .
I am pretty sure that the car dealership he was originally guarding was "blocks away" from the scene where the first shooting took place.
Perhaps, but everything took place along Sheridan Road.
well that will come out in trial since the first shooting took place in a car dealership and the police were blocks away where the "action " was and he had to go to them .
Besides , who is to say , the "action " didnt come to him? its not like the protesters were confined to any one place or area .
could be more than a grain of truth to him listening to someone , but one would have to also consider what he felt was right or wrong , and for that is to delve into the human belief systems .
My opinion , or view ? teens that age are not quite adults , and not quite children anymore , and are always looking for some form of acceptance in the community they live in .
To the police? WTF. He did the correct thing reporting to the police! Or do you think he just should have stayed there and let more rioters have a go at him?
I believe he called a friend after the first shooting, not the police. He told his friend "I killed someone" .
He doesn't know. He and Mark just make stuff up as they go along.
Must have missed the part where Halyna Hutchins was attacking Alex Baldwin.
You must have missed where people were calling for his arrest....
I can see why:
Had you or I done the same to say... your neighbor, we probably would have been charged. There is no exclusion in the law for actors that I am aware of.
Here's a question that we'll never know the answer, do you think Baldwin would have put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger without checking the chamber?
So we would be filming a movie at home?
and that has to do with what?.
Like maybe a prop master handing someone else the gun?
Did the prop master aim and pull the trigger? He violated two of the most critical rules of firearms safety, assume all guns are loaded and never point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot. You can say this person did this and this person did that and its a prop gun and blah blah blah blah. Do you think Alex Baldwin will EVER shoot another gun without checking the chamber.
I think he is a jackass and probably never held a gun.
Well, I have to agree with you there.
Good luck proving Baldwin committed "improper use of reasonable care". He is not even under investigation.
You know this how?
I'm literate.
oh , he has , in the hunt for red october for 1 i know of .
i think the real hidden issue is as outspoken and critical as he has been in the past about gun control or the use of guns , or the use of guns by police for him to ignore at least 3 firearms safety tenets , strike others as ironic . and almost hypocritical, to me its just ironic but not hypocritical. And its that to me because once one becomes lax as to safety , the irony is thats when accidents tend to happen .
1 alawys check the chamber of the gun no matter what someone tells you yourself to be sure.
2 always assume until you verify it yourself , that a gun handed to you or you pick up is loaded and treat it as such.
3 never point a gun in any direction or at any one or anything you do not intend to shoot .
lastly , if he had taken just one gun safety class at anytime in the past or handled or shot a gun , those 3 things would be ingrained , and someone might not be dead if he followed them .
I learned real quick to never point at anyone.
I have heard stories about people that think the gun is empty and go to clean it and it fires.
Ouch.
The worst I have done was as a kid shot myself in the bare foot with a bb gun.
So you think it is reasonable for someone to be handed a gun, not check to see if it is loaded, point it at another human being, and shoot the human?
Wow.............'nuff said.
Are you capable of forming a comment without asking a question that has already been answered?
Just give your opinion. I'm not interested in your constant questions.
I am amazed that anyone would think what Baldwin did was fine.
Of course, I have been around a gun before and always treat every one of them as if it was loaded until I personally check it.
Gun safety 101.
I think whoever was the freaking idiot who brought live ammo to a movie set was an idiot and responsible.
It is not unusual that a person who is not a shooter, would break virtually all the laws of safe gun handling.
I do blame whoever was responsible for safe handling of the weapons on that set. In hollywood these actor tools are just handed a gun and told what to do and they do it. Many of them don't know the first thing about safe gun handling or gun safety.
Not many Tom Sellecks or Chuck Norris's in Hollywood anymore
If there are , they are quiet about it .
Yep, the loons are running that loony-bin that's for sure.
John, "reasonable" would be check the gun to see if its loaded, "reasonable" would be not point it at a person. Don't tell me about "reasonable" because, it didn't come in to play. It was an accident, it was unintentional.
Here's some of video showing the leadup to the first shooting, showing the arsonist Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse.
Also, the fact that one of Rosenbaum's accomplishes shot a gun right near Rittenhouse right before he shot Rosenbaum doesn't get the attention it deserves.
"According to the criminal complaint, videos show Ziminski pointing the gun up near the corner of 63rd St. and Sheridan Road, just a few yards from where Rosenbaum, 36, had chased Rittenhouse into an area of parked cars. As the shot is heard, Rittenhouse turns back toward Rosenbaum.
Witnesses say Rosenbaum then tried to grab the rifle from Rittenhouse, who then fired four times."
The source being the equivalent of the National Enquirer - I wouldn't trust any of it.
Lol..
Myself, i'm satisfied to watch the justice system work and accept any fair verdict.
In the meantime i'll watch the NT Perry Mason society explain how it should be
It is entertaining.
I wouldn't insult Perry Mason. He was always right in his investigations.
Can't say that for most of the leftists on here.
That judge should be recused. He can go back to watching TV in his tidy whities with a foam rubber cheese wedge on his head.
What the hell kind of judge is that? He's allowing language that will prejudice the jury. I see it opening the possibility of an appeal on those grounds. I learned a lesson about the quality of "voted in" American judges when a friend and I drove to Florida one year.
I don't know if anyone is paying attention to the actual trial, but it's just been a disaster for the prosecution. This clip of the gun wielding rioter's testimony where he admits he was moving towards Rittenhouse with a gun drawn when he was shot is just devastating. The reaction of the prosecutor in the background is just priceless.
Maybe he will get off and feel emboldened and then maybe next time he travels to a disturbance to play vigilante he wont be so lucky. He is a nobody who wanted to be Rambo. He should quit while he is ahead.
Maybe the prosecutor should quit while he's behind.
Maybe I dont give a shit.
Whole lot of words prove otherwise.
The Star witness for the prosecution imploded on the stand today, he admitted the kid shot him only after he pointed his gun at the kid. The prosecutor can be seen putting his head down and his hands over his eyes.
He is going to walk.
It will be a shame if he gets off completely.
The kid loaded up his gun(s) and drove across state lines looking for trouble. There should be some level of punishment for that level of recklessness that ended up costing multiple lives.
If there is no punishment, we can just expect more nutjobs taking their AR-15s to places where only bad things can happen.
I don't think he was looking for trouble, I think he went there to help but he was naive in thinking he could walk around alone among wackadoo criminals armed and dressed as he was since it clearly marked him as someone opposed to the riots. I don't think he'll get away with underage possession of the firearm but I doubt they can charge and punish him as an adult given that his being underage at the time is the reason for the offense.
I think the only person who's likely to do jail time is Dominick Black who bought Kyle Rittenhouse's AR-15-style rifle for him because Rittenhouse was underage.
The way the prosecutions witnesses have testified , the prosecution has so far done the defenses work for them ,i doubt he will get off of the breaking curfew or underage posession , but the rest , the prosecution as i said by its own witnesses have proven self defense .
Now as for it encoureging others to do the same ? you bet it will give some of those people that decide that a peaceful protest is a good place to start some anarchist lawless shit that that may not be a very good idea since someone might just decide to shoot THEM. Which is why the left NEEDS a conviction , otherwise , it changes the whole aspect of protest , riot and anarchist activity , the posible consequenses might be more than they wish to pay..
I doubt anyone objects to a peaceful protest or demonstration , but i think most would draw the line at riots assaults and anarchy in the street, if one wants that my suggestion if the kid walks on the major charges of homicide , bring your own body bag if thats the route you decide your going .
maybe , maybe not , my understanding is black is the kids sisters boyfriend , nothing in the law says that he cannot gift it or even buy it for him even with money the kid gives him as long as that is stated on the paper work when it was bought through a dealer . and even if he bought it for himself and later decided to sell it to the kid in a private sale , all that would be needed then is parental consent . but then the sale would have to be to the parents and not the kid directly .
people are under the mistaken idea the kid couldnt have the firearm , which he could own and have , he simply could not purchase one himself .
Or on the other hand, a non conviction may discourage "peaceful protestors" from bringing guns or weapons to "peaceful protests."
But i'm of the same mind, he should get convicted on items where he actually broke the law. Underage possession and breaking curfew. Nothing more from the looks of things right now.
You continue to make shit up. These ridiculous scenarios.
Meh.
I'm not sure there is any other way to classify "taking an AR-15 to a riot a hundred miles from your home".
If we're honest, absolutely everybody who attends BLM "protests" is looking for trouble or at the very least understands that it's very likely to happen.
It certainly sounds that way.
Of course they do. That's what "counterprotesters" are. Well...they're unstable complete morons who think shouting at the sky has some meaning, but they also object to people saying shit they don't like.
I think we all need a conviction of some sort. Otherwise we'll have heavily armed whackadoodle nutjobs at every rally everywhere just looking for a reason to feel threatened.
People counter protest peacefully all the time.
think we all need a conviction of some sort.
Why do we need innocent people to go to jail? I thought blood sacrifices were over and done with.
If he's guilty of a crime he should be convicted, but innocent people don't need to go to jail as some sort of lesson.
erwise we'll have heavily armed whackadoodle nutjobs at every rally everywhere just looking for a reason to feel threatened.
As opposed to letting heavily armed whackadodoolde nutjobs attack people without consequence because they are aggrieved ? Similar to a don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped argument.
Still, they are actively objecting to another protest.
Innocent? Meh....
I think an argument can certainly be made that driving from another state to actively oppose a riot with an AR-15 constitutes "creating a significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm".
The car lot he was allegedly protecting and no where near when he gunned down these people - he was never asked to guard.
Neither did the protestors who chased or hassled him. Especially the one with the gun.
That's okay. That's free speech. Each side yells at the moon and goes home. It's only when someone gets violent, protestor or counter protester, that it's a problem.
Innocent? Meh....
It's pretty much generally accepted you can shoot someone trying to kill you. The eyewitnesses, the video, even one of the guys who was shot all agree that Rittenhouse was pursued and only shot people literally attacking him or coming at him while pointing a gun at him. If that's not self defense, I don't know what is.
ertainly be made that driving from another state to actively oppose a riot with an AR-15 constitutes "creating a significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm".
So if you are in a riot zone, you lose the right to self defense? Do rioters get a veto over lawful actions?
ottom line…he had no business being there.
Making a bad decision doesn't mean you are free game. IT doesn't matter why he was there. Or whether he lived 20 miles away. None of those things make it okay to attack him or removes him from the protection of the law.
If you go into a high crime neighborhood taking a short cut to a baseball game, do you lose your rights? Can you be attacked without consequence because you shouldn't be there?
Not just that, but does that cut both ways? If you are in a riot zone, not from that area, and commit criminal actions does that mean you should face stiffer charges and penalties?
I agree completely, but I also agree completely with @ r.t..b...
All of these people were looking for trouble.
Yeah, so if you shoot someone a mile from your house while looting, it's a ticket. If it's within 10 miles it's a class 2 felony. More than 10 it's a class one felony.
No argument there. I just tire of only Rittenhouse being singled out.
That has nothing to do with the legal standard for self defense. What matters is (1) he ran away and tried to deescalate the situation (2) he was attacked and was in reasonable fear for his life.
What matters is what happened during the actual confrontation, not whether someone "belongs" there or not or his motive for being on a public street.
If you want to show he's guilty, you have to prove he was unreasonable in believing he was in danger of great bodily harm. Good luck with that.
l other commentary at this point is either conflation or deflection.
That's what you are doing by focusing on where he lives or that he opposed rioting and looting.
I'm not saying it's not a protected right. I'm just saying they're objecting to peaceful protests.
Let's don't pretend there isn't a difference between a riot breaking out around you and driving 100 miles with your gun to find one.
That all depends on the situation.
If a riot breaks out on my suburban street and I shoot somebody trying to set my house on fire, nobody's going to say much. But if I drive 20 minutes into downtown Dallas and point my shotgun at some protester who then draws his 9mm...I don't have a self defense claim. He does.
This kid has been charged with reckless homicide. His being there with that gun was a ridiculously reckless act. The question will come down to "disregard for human life".
I'm not sure that holds up from a legal perspective.
It's like the difference between coming home to find your wife in bed with somebody and shooting them vs. driving 3hrs to the hotel they're staying in to shoot them. Those are different crimes.
hose are different crimes.
But you are conflating separate defenses to a murder. Rittenhouse isn't claiming the shock of what he saw in Kenosha so deranged his senses that he wasn't of sound mind. He's arguing self defense, that's an entirely seperate legal defense with different requirements. For self defense, he has to show he was reasonably in fear for his safety at the time he defended himself, that's it.
In your scenario, if he drove three hours and confronted his wife and the guy followed him out of the hotel after he tried to leave, he could claim self defense if the guy sleeping with his wife attacked him.
I don't understand the distinction between peaceful protests. There's no difference between peacefully counter protesting and protesting.
et's don't pretend there isn't a difference between a riot breaking out around you and driving 100 miles with your gun to find one.
First, let's not pretend he drove a 100 miles. It's more like 20. Second, there is no legal difference. Your right not to be attacked isn't dependent on your address.
ut if I drive 20 minutes into downtown Dallas and point my shotgun at some protester who then draws his 9mm...I don't have a self defense claim. He does.
The driving 20 minutes doesn't matter. If you pull on someone who isn't a threat, you have no self defense claim. Both parties in a situation can have a self defense claim. If the witness had shot Rittenhouse, he could have argued self defense too. . Just like the case in Louisville where the guy shot a cop who burst in his apartment on a no knock warrant and wasn't charged and neither were the cops who returned fire.
The question will come down to "disregard for human life".
That's not how this works. If he proves self defense, he can't be found guilty of reckless homicide. The self defense statute and the elements of the defense is what matters. Self defense is an affirmative defense, which means you can't be convicted even if the prosecution proves all of the elements of reckless homicide.
I didn't think he was charged with murder.
There is more to it than that.
If he bursts into that room with his gun drawn, the other guy has the self-defense claim.
You are right, but self defense is the key issue.
There is more to it than that.
What am I missing? The Wisconsin self defense statute is pretty straightforward.
e bursts into that room with his gun drawn, the other guy has the self-defense claim.
Sure. But if the guy who bursts into the room then leaves, and the guy in the room gets up and starts chasing him, the right to self defense switches. The guy who was in the room originally is now the aggressor.
The fact that Rittenhouse tried to leave the confrontation and was chased is what makes his case so strong. It's impossible to argue the guy running away is an immediate threat.
I don't doubt that the skateboard dude was self defense.
I'm not sure about the other one.
And one off the dead assaulted him with a potentially deadly weapon and the other lunged at him to attack him. Now this. Clearly all self defense.
Seems that the court of public opinion was wrong again.
He carried an evil black gun, so in the court of liberal progressives he is automatically a bad, bad man.
And the odd part is that the only prosecution we are hearing about after 25 deaths via the summer riots is a case of self defense.
I want all the people who voted for Joe Biden to think about that.
Really shows how ignorant many people are when it comes to guns and social media.
I think part of the problem is that those who voted for Biden don't think. It wasn't Trump so they selected him with no idea of the failure he's been for 50 years.
Those who voted for Biden fall into two categories.
First would be the larger group that voted for the most frivolous of reasons.
The second would be the extreme left of the democratic party.
This is the Group that was Brainwashed by five years of Politically Motivated Anti-Trump Propaganda and Witch Hunt Investigations, and Two Bullshit Impeachment Trials.
Right wing gaslighting. Trump tried to coerce the government of another country into conducting a witch hunt of trumps political opponent in his next election. He should have been thrown out on his ass for that alone.
That's all they got along with projection, deflection, and denial.
President Biden isn't a failure. That's whatshisname - a complete failure, #45, a loser, and miserable piece of shit for more than 50 years.
Like we see in 26.2.10
We're not the brainwashed here.
Get back to me when ever you're able to provide a fact, so never.
How did you put it? Oh, that's right - I don't have to prove DICK. 3.2.3
And you never have.
Oh I see.....Hillary can create a witch hunt for 5 years and it's OK.