New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Got it. So in reality, it is you that believe whatever conspiracy theory shit your master(s) had down, not me.

More amateur gaslighting.

Of the two of us, only one of us is going to throw an embarrassing little hissy fit and accuse the world of a vast conspiracy, if reality doesn't align with his childish political fetishes.

That would be you., clinging to the marching orders spoonfed to you by people who make money off of your ignorance and gullibility.

 

[Correll]

More amateur gaslighting.

Of the two of us, only one of us is going to throw an embarrassing little hissy fit and accuse the world of a vast conspiracy, if reality doesn't align with his childish political fetishes.

That would be you., clinging to the marching orders spoonfed to you by people who make money off of your ignorance and gullibility.

LOL. You just described Russia gate, to a T. And libs who still whine about the florida recount.


AND, my words describing how you libs operate, requires no "conspiracy",


just a lot of radicalized leftards, doing what they do, which is be leftarded.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Irrelevant to the issue.

It is lawful to discharge a firearm is self-defense.

it is irrelevant tp his case -- your right to self-defense is not diminished by the fact you are from out of state.

The fact they are worrying about the firearm possession charge means they know they have the mandslaughter charge beat.
And they do.

1. The law begs to differ. Also, since it's all connected (junior comes to town on a mission, gets gun illegally from a friend, illegally carries weapon into volatile situation and discharges it, causing a death. Trial to determine justifiable homicide (manslaughter), but also to convict on aforementioned charges which stand apart from the death. The person who illegally gave a minor a weapon for other than supervised hunting is an accomplice. Matters of fact, matters of history whether you like/acknowledge it or not.

2. See #1.

3. See #1.

4. Pure speculation, coupled with supposition and conjecture on your part. See #1.

 

[Correll]

It is worth noting that this is a good example of why "gun nuts" almost always oppose even the most reasonable sounding gun laws.


Because they can and will be used to oppress people.

The law forbidding minors from carrying guns, was not written so that a man attacked by a violent mob, would go to jail for life, for defending himself.


But, that is the way it is being used.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

What is next?

He thought he was living in a real life Purge moment?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. The law begs to differ. Also, since it's all connected (junior comes to town on a mission, gets gun illegally from a friend, illegally carries weapon into volatile situation and discharges it, causing a death. Trial to determine justifiable homicide (manslaughter), but also to convict on aforementioned charges which stand apart from the death. The person who illegally gave a minor a weapon for other than supervised hunting is an accomplice. Matters of fact, matters of history whether you like/acknowledge it or not.

2. See #1.

3. See #1.

4. Pure speculation, coupled with supposition and conjecture on your part. See #1.

I don't know.

Wisconsin law seems to be on Rittnehouse's side.

Wisconsin Statutes

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.

(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.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property 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 his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

If you saw the video, you would agree that he was alone among a large group of protesters who had already become violent. He was running from them when they attacked him, one hit him in the head with a skateboard (which would be classified as a deadly weapon as used in the video) and a third drew a firearm before being shot.

Nowhere does Wisconsin law remove the privilege of self-defense for any unlawful action except provocation. In fact, the provocation exception is so limited as to be irrelevant, given the facts in this matter. Video of Rittenhouse running down the street trying to get away from would-be attackers before actually being hit with a skateboard is pretty conclusive of a person (Rittenhouse) exhausting every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of assailants.

 

[Faun]

I don't know.

Wisconsin law seems to be on Rittnehouse's side.

Wisconsin Statutes

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.

(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.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property 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 his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

If you saw the video, you would agree that he was alone among a large group of protesters who had already become violent. He was running from them when they attacked him, one hit him in the head with a skateboard (which would be classified as a deadly weapon as used in the video) and a third drew a firearm before being shot.

Nowhere does Wisconsin law remove the privilege of self-defense for any unlawful action except provocation. In fact, the provocation exception is so limited as to be irrelevant, given the facts in this matter. Video of Rittenhouse running down the street trying to get away from would-be attackers before actually being hit with a skateboard is pretty conclusive of a person (Rittenhouse) exhausting every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of assailants.

Which according to some early reports, Rittenhouse may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you think white wing militia cosplay shitgibbons aren't watching this one closely, hoping for the greenlight, you are naive. Rittenhouse's acquittal will have them looking for reasons to shoot protestors. Even more than they already are.

I don't know too many people who want to be caught up in a shooting where they are forced to pay shit tons of money for legal fees to defend themselves in a murder trial.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wisconsin law seems to be on Rittnehouse's side.

The prosecutors who are experts in Wisconsin law do not seem to agree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know too many people who want to be caught up in a shooting where they are forced to pay shit tons of money for legal fees to defend themselves in a murder trial.

Right, which is why they are hoping Rittenhouse is acquitted. Open season.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which according to some early reports, Rittenhouse may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

Which according to some early reports, Rittenhouse may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

Early reports? Any witnesses?

Which one was Rosenbaum? Was he the sex offender or the guy who hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard?

There's video of the "protestors" starting a fire in a dumpster and Rittenhouse puts it out with a fire extinguisher. The first guy was killed shortly after that. See 939.49 above.

 

[Faun]

Early reports? Any witnesses?

Which one was Rosenbaum? Was he the sex offender or the guy who hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard?

There's video of the "protestors" starting a fire in a dumpster and Rittenhouse puts it out with a fire extinguisher. The first guy was killed shortly after that. See 939.49 above.

If you don't know who's who, you should go do your homework. There is a witness who said Rittenhouse wasn't handling is firearm very well. Another witness described Rittenhouse and says he pointed his gun at him.

 

[Faun]

Early reports? Any witnesses?

Which one was Rosenbaum? Was he the sex offender or the guy who hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard?

There's video of the "protestors" starting a fire in a dumpster and Rittenhouse puts it out with a fire extinguisher. The first guy was killed shortly after that. See 939.49 above.

There's no video of Rittenhouse putting out any fires.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Early reports? Any witnesses?

Which one was Rosenbaum? Was he the sex offender or the guy who hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard?

There's video of the "protestors" starting a fire in a dumpster and Rittenhouse puts it out with a fire extinguisher. The first guy was killed shortly after that. See 939.49 above.

There is no video of Rittenhouse putting out a fire.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you don't know who's who, you should go do your homework. There is a witness who said Rittenhouse wasn't handling is firearm very well. Another witness described Rittenhouse and says he pointed his gun at him.

Do you know who is who by name? I know there were three people who got shot. The first one was just after Rittenhouse put out the "protester" dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher, and the idiot followed Rittenhouse onto the private property and tried to take his firearm. A fatal mistake.

Were these "witnesses" the same people who set the dumpster on fire Rittenhouse put out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. The law begs to differ.

Really. Cite the part of WI self-defense laws to that effect.

Also, since it's all connected (junior comes to town on a mission, gets gun illegally from a friend, illegally carries weapon into volatile situation and discharges it, causing a death.

The law begs to differ.
The only thing that matters here, under the law, is if Rittenhouse has a reasonable fear for his life, and if the use of force was reasonably necessary for him to protect himself.
None of that other stuff matters. Not one whit.

Trial to determine justifiable homicide (manslaughter),

Um.... no.
Manslaughter is a charge; self-defense is a legal defense.
Killing someone in self-defense is homicide, not manslaughter.
Please note that homicide is not inherently illegal or necessarily a crime.

but also to convict on aforementioned charges which stand apart from the death.

Yes, The firearms charge. Has no effect on the claim of self-defense.
These are matters of fact, whether you understand them or not.

 

[Faun]

Do you know who is who by name? I know there were three people who got shot. The first one was just after Rittenhouse put out the "protester" dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher, and the idiot followed Rittenhouse onto the private property and tried to take his firearm. A fatal mistake.

Were these "witnesses" the same people who set the dumpster on fire Rittenhouse put out?

Of course I know who's who by name. And no, they were not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is worth noting that this is a good example of why "gun nuts" almost always oppose even the most reasonable sounding gun laws.

"Reasonable sounding", of course, does not necessarily mean "reasonable".
The only "reasonable" gun laws are those demonstrably necessary and effective, as there's no "reason" to be found in placing unnecessary and/or ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

The law forbidding minors from carrying guns, was not written so that a man attacked by a violent mob, would go to jail for life, for defending himself.

The weapons charge is a misdemeanor, and has no bearing on the claim of self-defense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There's no video of Rittenhouse putting out any fires.

Wrong.

I, and many others here, have seen it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course I know who's who by name. And no, they were not.

Kyle Rittenhouse Fire Extinguisher Provoked Rosenbaum Anger

Kyle Rittenhouse fire extinguisher made Joseph Rosenbaum irate before Rosenbaum chased the teenager down, witnesses said.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

Sounds like self-defense to me.