Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[Soupnazi630]

That does not help.
If you are shooting someone who is going down and rotating, you are guilty of murder.
In fact, since Rosenbaum was unarmed, then there is never a legal defense for shooting at all, even if he is bigger.

No you are not

Yes it is legal to shoot someone reaching for your weapon which Rosenbaum did. That act makes the attacker a lethal threat.

We saw something similar in Ferguson where Micheal Brown attempted to take Ifficer Wilson's weapon. Among other reasons that act made it a legal shooting

 

[2aguy]

That does not help.
If you are shooting someone who is going down and rotating, you are guilty of murder.
In fact, since Rosenbaum was unarmed, then there is never a legal defense for shooting at all, even if he is bigger.

You really don't know self defense law....

 

[Rigby5]

Yes. There was one small-caliber shot (into the air by Ziminski) followed immediately by 4 shots from Rittenhouse, followed by 3 more small-caliber shots.

Where any of those landed is unclear.

At no time did Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum after the immediate burst of 4 rounds. If one of those 4 quick bursts hit Rosenbaum in the back, it was not because Rosenbaum was no longer a threat. Rather, the timing of the shot and Rosenbaum's lunge.

You can not fire at a physical threat, but only at a life threatening threat from an obvious lethal weapon, of which there was none.
Using a firearm on a physical threat is disproportionate and totally illegal.
The only people who can do that are women because they can claim they are being sexually assaulted.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That does not help.
If you are shooting someone who is going down and rotating, you are guilty of murder.
In fact, since Rosenbaum was unarmed, then there is never a legal defense for shooting at all, even if he is bigger.

Rosenbaum would have been armed had Rittenhouse not shot him. He was trying to take the rifle.

You have a really warped perspective on defense with a firearm. Have you ever had any training?

 

[Soupnazi630]

You can not fire at a physical threat, but only at a life threatening threat from an obvious lethal weapon, of which there was none.
Using a firearm on a physical threat is disproportionate and totally illegal.
The only people who can do that are women because they can claim they are being sexually assaulted.

Wrong.

A physical threat can be life threatening and that includes someone attempting to take the weapon from you.

It can also include improvised weapons such as skateboards.

It is not illegal

 

[Faun]

He had every right to be there you twat. The assholes trying to burn the place down, DIDN'T

He didn't have a right to be there armed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He didn't have a right to be there armed.

True but he still had the right to defend himself

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You can not fire at a physical threat, but only at a life threatening threat from an obvious lethal weapon, of which there was none.
Using a firearm on a physical threat is disproportionate and totally illegal.
The only people who can do that are women because they can claim they are being sexually assaulted.

As I said, Rosenbaum was trying to obtain a lethal weapon....from Rittenhouse. He was a heartbeat away from becoming a lethal threat.

You have not had any training, have you?

 

[Faun]

That does not help.
If you are shooting someone who is going down and rotating, you are guilty of murder.
In fact, since Rosenbaum was unarmed, then there is never a legal defense for shooting at all, even if he is bigger.

It doesn't matter because Rosenbaum's body never rotated. He lunged forward and fell straight down on his face.

 

[Rigby5]

No you are not

Yes it is legal to shoot someone reaching for your weapon which Rosenbaum did. That act makes the attacker a lethal threat.

We saw something similar in Ferguson where Micheal Brown attempted to take officer Wilson's weapon. Among other reasons that act made it a legal shooting

Wrong.
Since it was illegal for Rittenhouse to even have a rifle, much less bring it to a riot, he has zero self defense claims.
And no, someone reaching for a weapon is not automatically a lethal threat.

With Michael Brown, the attempt to take the gun from Wilson was much earlier, at the squad car, and that is not when Brown was shot.
He was shot much later, after having run away, and then turning and starting to move back towards Wilson, who was no longer in the car.
But in my opinion, Wilson was also guilty of deliberate murder.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He didn't have a right to be there armed.

But, that does not matter.

Wisconsin Statutes 939.48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Since it was illegal for Rittenhouse to even have a rifle, much less bring it to a riot, he has zero self defense claims.

That is not correct. See post #811 wisconsin law

 

[Faun]

I am on my phone so can't do it. Look up federal prohibited person

I don’t do your homework. And what the fuck kind of phone do you have that enables you to connect to this website but not to one which could prove your claims??

 

[Dragonlady]

No you are not

Yes it is legal to shoot someone reaching for your weapon which Rosenbaum did. That act makes the attacker a lethal threat.

We saw something similar in Ferguson where Micheal Brown attempted to take Ifficer Wilson's weapon. Among other reasons that act made it a legal shooting

Michael Brown was reaching for a police officer's gun. Taking Kyle's gun is called "disarming an armed suspect with an illegal weapon".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With Michael Brown, the attempt to take the gun from Wilson was much earlier, at the squad car, and that is not when Brown was shot.
He was shot much later, after having run away, and then turning and starting to move back towards Wilson, who was no longer in the car.
But in my opinion, Wilson was also guilty of deliberate murder.

Again, you do not have training.

Are you familiar with the 21-foot rule?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Michael Brown was reaching for a police officer's gun. Taking Kyle's gun is called "disarming an armed suspect with an illegal weapon".

Or, violently taking a deadly weapon from your vicitim....

You can spin it any way you like. Rittenhouse was not the aggressor, nor was he the person who fired the first shot.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Since it was illegal for Rittenhouse to even have a rifle, much less bring it to a riot, he has zero self defense claims.
And no, someone reaching for a weapon is not automatically a lethal threat.

With Michael Brown, the attempt to take the gun from Wilson was much earlier, at the squad car, and that is not when Brown was shot.
He was shot much later, after having run away, and then turning and starting to move back towards Wilson, who was no longer in the car.
But in my opinion, Wilson was also guilty of deliberate murder.

Wrong.

Illegally possessing a weapon does not negate your right to self defense even with that weapon.

FOr example you steal a gun and run away then someone else unrelated to the theft tries to kill you. You can still get charged with illegally taking the gun but it is still self defense if you use it to shoot them.

Wilson legally shot Brown. Yes there were differences but one key element is that attempting to take a persons weapon is a threat on their life and you shoot until the threat is down

 

[Faun]

But, that does not matter.

Wisconsin Statutes 939.48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

That doesn't negate the illegality of excessive force.

 

[Rigby5]

As I said, Rosenbaum was trying to obtain a lethal weapon....from Rittenhouse. He was a heartbeat away from becoming a lethal threat.

You have not had any training, have you?

Having a lethal weapon does not necessarily make someone a lethal threat, or else Rittenhouse was a lethal threat, since he was armed.
And that is the point, in that Rittenhouse's actions were extremely provocative, bringing a rifle, so then he no longer has ANY recourse to self defense.
It would have been legal for anyone to shot him on sight.

I have firearm training, not only as a member of organizations, but also from CCW permit testing.

You are at a contradiction.
If you can kill over reaching towards a weapon, then you can kill over holding a weapon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That doesn't negate the illegality of excessive force.

You and I will need to agree to disagree.

If somebody is attempting to violently take my weapon, I am entitled to assume that person will use it to kill me, and respond appropriately.