Leftwing Antifa domestic terrorist shoots man for not getting Covid vaccine.

Yes. Under WI the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Rittemnhouse could not have reasonably believed the people chasing him intended to cause him harm.

He was running away. He turned and shot in response to the people chasing him preparing to attack him.
If there was a burden to de-escalate, he met it.

Even if true, under WI law, as soon as you disengage from that provocation, your right to self-defense resets.
Running away = disengaing

1: He was running away
2: See above.

The only way to soundly argue Rittenehouse did not act in self-defense is to soundly argue the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had a right to do so.
Please proceed.
The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so. The only way he can claim self-defense is that UNARMED people could be reasonably be assumed to gonna kill someone armed with a high-powered rifle. The only way he can claim it was self-defense is that he can
a) show that running was his ONLY option and not for instance staying where he was and call the police (something he didn't do although he did find the time to call a friend saying he killed someone right after the first shooting.)
b) that the first shooting was justifiable. Again hard to do since he was faced with one person throwing a plastic bag.

I have continued and I still like the DA's chances.
 
The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so. The only way he can claim self-defense is that UNARMED people could be reasonably be assumed to gonna kill someone armed with a high-powered rifle. The only way he can claim it was self-defense is that he can
a) show that running was his ONLY option and not for instance staying where he was and call the police (something he didn't do although he did find the time to call a friend saying he killed someone right after the first shooting.)
b) that the first shooting was justifiable. Again hard to do since he was faced with one person throwing a plastic bag.

I have continued and I still like the DA's chances.
The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so.

Let's see your link to him saying he went there to kill people. forkup
 
There is no requirement in defending yourself to make sure you don’t kill anyone in that defense.!
 
The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so.

Let's see your link to him saying he went there to kill people. forkup

About 35 seconds in.
 
Cool.

Your video doesn't show him saying he wanted to kill anyone.

Wanna try again? :auiqs.jpg:
He said, "I wish I had my bleep, I'd start shooting." That is verbatim. And before you give me the " it could be anyone" bullshit. It's a cell phone video. Either belonging to Rittenhouse or a friend of his. The reason I know this is because the prosecution wants to enter it into evidence. They would not do so if they could not establish it was the voice of Rittenhouse on that clip.
 
He said, "I wish I had my bleep, I'd start shooting." That is verbatim. And before you give me the " it could be anyone" bullshit. It's a cell phone video. Either belonging to Rittenhouse or a friend of his. The reason I know this is because the prosecution wants to enter it into evidence. They would not do so if they could not establish it was the voice of Rittenhouse on that clip.
Once again, show us where he travelled there to "kill people", as you claimed.
 
Once again, show us where he travelled there to "kill people", as you claimed.
What do you mean? He didn't live in Kenosha. So he traveled. And you are moving the goalpost. You asked me to show Rittenhouse saying he wanted to kill people. I did.
 
What do you mean? He didn't live in Kenosha. So he traveled. And you are moving the goalpost. You asked me to show Rittenhouse saying he wanted to kill people. I did.
No, I"m not moving anything.

YOU claimed he went there to kill people. You lied, now you are scrambling to save face. It isn't working, liar.
 
No, I"m not moving anything.

YOU claimed he went there to kill people. You lied, now you are scrambling to save face. It isn't working, liar.
I said he was on tape saying he wanted to kill people. That is a fact not a lie. His words, not mine. And he did. By the way Nostra. I could do without name-calling. It is boring and derails conversations.
 
I said he was on tape saying he wanted to kill people. That is a fact not a lie. His words, not mine. And he did. By the way Nostra. I could do without name-calling. It is boring and derails conversations.
I said he was on tape saying he wanted to kill people.

You keep lying. You said he said he was there to kill people.


The only way Rittenhouse can claim self-defense is that he didn't intend to kill people. Kind of hard to maintain when he said he was there to do so. The only way he can claim self-defense is that UNARMED people could be reasonably be assumed to gonna kill someone armed with a high-powered rifle. The only way he can claim it was self-defense is that he can
a) show that running was his ONLY option and not for instance staying where he was and call the police (something he didn't do although he did find the time to call a friend saying he killed someone right after the first shooting.)
b) that the first shooting was justifiable. Again hard to do since he was faced with one person throwing a plastic bag.

I have continued and I still like the DA's chances.
 
I said he was on tape saying he wanted to kill people.

You keep lying. You said he said he was there to kill people.
Bored now. Talk to me again when you reach the mental maturity of at least an eight-year-old.
 
Bored now. Talk to me again when you reach the mental maturity of at least an eight-year-old.
Yep, you usual MO.

When proven to be a lying sack of shit using your own words, you run away.

Bye, liar. :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:
 
Ah, so when you said that the right doesn't use violence you meant besides those times that they did?

I didn't give you one instance but three. I could also do this. The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting

This is by no means a comprehensive list and as I said before the left has its share of crazies. But guess what. You have more.
I don’t think you or myself can discern who creates more violence. I didn’t deny violence from the right. I sited the violence from ANTIFA and their impact on innocents.
 
I don’t think you or myself can discern who creates more violence. I didn’t deny violence from the right. I sited the violence from ANTIFA and their impact on innocents.
Right Wing militias carry guns but last I checked, they aren’t stopping old people from crossing the street, burning businesses, or ripping people from their cars and beating the shit out of them.
Sounds suspiciously like you were denying violence from the right. And you are right you are I can't discern who creates more violence. Although you get a pretty good idea following the news. But here's the thing. There are people who can and do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top