OPINION: Criminal Law 101 - Self-Defense (Rittenhouse versus McMichaels)

[Muhammed]

Rittenhouse traveled to another state with the intent of killing those engaged in peaceful, lawful protest.

Could you explain to the USMB forum, the convoluted reasoning that you used to come to that stupid conclusion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like you're right. Why shoot him in the back seven times?

Jacob Blake’s uncle calls police union’s version of shooting ‘garbage,’ ‘insulting’

Jacob Blake’s uncle called the Kenosha, Wisconsin, police union’s version of what happened in the moments before he was shot “garbage” and “insulting.” Justin Bl…

nypost.com

What's the proper number of times and proper place to shoot him?

 

[Muhammed]

Looks like you're right. Why shoot him in the back seven times?

Repeated attempts to use alternative means of stopping him were unsuccessful.

Verbal commands didn't stop him, trying to wrestle him down didn't stop him and the Taser didn't stop him.

Shooting the perp stopped him.

 

[Esdraelon]

if you point a gun at someone and they respond to this act with violence, particularly non-deadly violence, then you are unable to claim lawfully self-defense.

The Prosecution couldn't prove he ever did that. They used a blurred image that had to be altered for "clarity" to try to make that argument and 12 jurors didn't agree. That's how our system works. Get over it.

 

[Mushroom]

I honestly don't understand how so many people who apparently carry weapons are unable to understand that if you point a gun at someone and they respond to this act with violence, particularly non-deadly violence, then you are unable to claim lawfully self-defense.

The thing was, for RIttenhouse he was not aiming the gun at anybody. He simply had a gun, and was then assaulted. He was trying to avoid one person who had threatened to kill him, and was neither brandishing his gun, nor threatening anybody with it. Where a crowd chased him and threw things at him while threatening him.

Simply having a weapon is not the same as pointing it at people.

 

[Mushroom]

The Prosecution couldn't prove he ever did that.

There is actually a great deal of video footage of him that night. And in none of it was he ever shown to be pointing his gun at anybody.

Until after he was assaulted. Then chased and attacked by others, and a bystander who was chasing him fired a gun into the air behind him. Only after that was he almost trapped between cars and one threatening to kill him was within arms reach did he finally point his gun and fire.

And again afterwards, while trying to get to a place of safety. Where he was again attacked, bit in the head with a skateboard, and had somebody with a gun come at him.

Also telling is that after the shootings were completed, he went immediately to the police (which was his destination all along) and turn himself in to them.

There is a great deal of video before the first shot was even fired, and in all of it he was simply trying to get away from protestors, and did not aim his gun at any of them in any of the videos. That to me was the most important consideration. Ultimately that is likely what resulted in the verdict, as there was absolutely no evidence that Mr. Rittenhouse had brandished his gun at anybody. But there was a lot of video of Joseph Rosenbaum actually confronting other armed individuals and demanding that they "shoot him".

And it does not help that just before this all happened, Joseph Rosenbaum had been released from a mental health facility that day. He had been in and out of trouble for years, including multiple cases of assault and being a registered child molester. It was so bad that he was placed on "lifetime probation" after removing his ankle monitor. And was awaiting trial for domestic abuse that night.