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

No, I just seem to be the only person who paid attention in my training classes. Before they ever allowed us on the range we had to demonstrate our understanding and knowledge of many aspects of handling and carrying a firearm, ,most importantly when you can lawfully shoot and claim self-defense.

Our instructors were very adamant that when you start carrying a firearm, you have to change your behavior if you don't want the emotional and financial expenses of being tried for UNLAWFULLY killing someone, if you're successful, and/or the possible loss of life and/or freedom if not.

You don't insert yourself into volatile situations, you put your ego in check and walk away from a lot of things that are nothing but stupidity and words which can only hurt your pride. You don't insert yourself into other people's conflicts and you learn how to deescalate certain situation if possible, if you can't, then just remove yourself from the situation. Protests can turn into riots or other dangerous situations not just from the rioters but from law enforcement as well if they can't distinguish you from the rioters, vandals looters, etc.

Kyle has no one to blame but himself for the situation he's in now. This is what happens when people with no background, training or knowledge of the law think it's okay to pick up a weapon (unlawfully) and travel across state lines with it (unlawfully) and join in "the fun".

People who don't possess the knowledge or common sense to keep their own selves safe, yet for some reason some of you think that it's not only lawful but a good idea for these same people to attempt to detain and//or arrest others for violations of laws. That is insane on it's face.
Training on some range has nothing to do with where you can legally carry, nothing to do with the fact that when someone makes the conscious choice to attack you, chase you, stomp yiu, and try to shoot yiu 1) it isn't your fault & 2) you have the right to defend yourself.

Those are matters of law and common sense.
 
Before or after he killed his first victim?
Calling Rosenbaum a "victim" is just stupid.

Sure, the lying corrupt prosecutor, ADA Binger, told the jury that Kyle chased down and attacked Rosenbaum, but the video evidence that the prosecutor tried to suppress the jury from seeing conclusively proves that the exact opposite of the prosecutor's lie is what really happened.

The video proves that Rosenbaum chased down and attacked Kyle. It wasn't the other way around. Kyle never chased down Rosenbaum.

Have you even seen the video?

Are you posting from prison where you don't have access to the video?
 
Calling Rosenbaum a "victim" is just stupid.

Sure, the lying corrupt prosecutor, ADA Binger, told the jury that Kyle chased down and attacked Rosenbaum, but the video evidence that the prosecutor tried to suppress the jury from seeing conclusively proves that the exact opposite of the prosecutor's lie is what really happened.

The video proves that Rosenbaum chased down and attacked Kyle. It wasn't the other way around. Kyle never chased down Rosenbaum.

Have you even seen the video?

Are you posting from prison where you don't have access to the video?

The Left is pathetic, as it tries to spin a reason, any reason, they might be correct.

What it really is, is that they do NOT create reasons, they create EXCUSES. It is all about the hatred of the 2nd amendment, plain and simple. You can't pillage and cause chaos if met with citizens in possession of fire arms. They no lika-dat-stuff, so anyone who resists, MUST be punished!
 
In the Rittenhouse case, he shouldn't have been armed in the first place due to his age
He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.

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

Local businesses were in no need of Rittenhouse’s ‘protection’ – motivated by racism and hate, Rittenhouse willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation armed to murder; he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’
 
He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.

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

Local businesses were in no need of Rittenhouse’s ‘protection’ – motivated by racism and hate, Rittenhouse willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation armed to murder; he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’

He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.


Too much freedom going on around here!!!

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

Wow! Lots of big lies packed into your little sentence.

he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’

And yet, it was self-defense.
 
Kyle has no one to blame but himself for the situation he's in now. This is what happens when people with no background, training or knowledge of the law think it's okay to pick up a weapon (unlawfully) and travel across state lines with it (unlawfully) and join in "the fun".
You're simply stupidly parroting ridiculous disinformation from the fake news media, you LWNJ moronic moonbat.

Can you show any sort of evidence that Kyle picked up a weapon and traveled across state lines with it?

Of course you cannot, because you're simply spewing stupid lies that you've been easily brainwashed into believing by the fake news media due to your low IQ.
 
He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.

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

Local businesses were in no need of Rittenhouse’s ‘protection’ – motivated by racism and hate, Rittenhouse willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation armed to murder; he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’
The people "engaged in peaceful, lawful protest" went home when the curfew was declared. The ones left were violent rioters.
 
. In the Rittenhouse case, he shouldn't have been armed in the first place due to his age,
True

Rittenhouse is guilty of a misdomeanor and will face some consequences for that

But otherwise he is guilty of nothing
 
He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.

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

Local businesses were in no need of Rittenhouse’s ‘protection’ – motivated by racism and hate, Rittenhouse willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation armed to murder; he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’

If protestors are allowed to walk the streets so are those protesting the protestors. He had every right to be there. Whether or not it was a prudent discussion is another discussion that is not relevant to his claim of self-defense.

Not sure why you think his intent was to kill people. If that was his intent, he would have shot these folks prior to being threatened. Also, the protests were far from peaceful.

Rittenhouse shot 3 white guys. Where does racism come into play here?

You are lost.
 
No, I just seem to be the only person who paid attention in my training classes. Before they ever allowed us on the range we had to demonstrate our understanding and knowledge of many aspects of handling and carrying a firearm, ,most importantly when you can lawfully shoot and claim self-defense.

Our instructors were very adamant that when you start carrying a firearm, you have to change your behavior if you don't want the emotional and financial expenses of being tried for UNLAWFULLY killing someone, if you're successful, and/or the possible loss of life and/or freedom if not.

You don't insert yourself into volatile situations, you put your ego in check and walk away from a lot of things that are nothing but stupidity and words which can only hurt your pride. You don't insert yourself into other people's conflicts and you learn how to deescalate certain situation if possible, if you can't, then just remove yourself from the situation. Protests can turn into riots or other dangerous situations not just from the rioters but from law enforcement as well if they can't distinguish you from the rioters, vandals looters, etc.

Kyle has no one to blame but himself for the situation he's in now. This is what happens when people with no background, training or knowledge of the law think it's okay to pick up a weapon (unlawfully) and travel across state lines with it (unlawfully) and join in "the fun".

People who don't possess the knowledge or common sense to keep their own selves safe, yet for some reason some of you think that it's not only lawful but a good idea for these same people to attempt to detain and//or arrest others for violations of laws. That is insane on it's face.
You are confused.

The people to blame are the rioters that tried to attack Kyle.
 
True

Rittenhouse is guilty of a misdomeanor and will face some consequences for that

But otherwise he is guilty of nothing
Not necessarily. Under Wisconsin law a minor can be in possession of a firearm as long as he's with someone of lawful age. He was there with Dominic Black, who was his Firearms instructor and the owner of the firearm Kyle was carrying. He testified that when the shit hit the fan he had gotten separated from his buddy, an adult (there were shots fired nearby). So he likely wasn't in violation of any law.
 
What difference does his choice of weapon make? He's still underage and I'm not sure about WI but in many states while the legal age to possess a long gun is 18, it's 21 for a handgun. He's be in violation of the law either way.

I'm not sure his alleged good deed offsets two dead bodies, but I guess we'll all see.

You are confused.

His legal status of having the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of using it in a self defense case.

If you Moon Bats are concerned about legal status of weapons then that shithead GG was illegally concealed carrying and he is the asshole that tried to shoot Kyle. Why hasn't that piece of shit been charged with a crime? Is it because of the injustice of the dickhead Democrat Prosecutor?
 
No, I just seem to be the only person who paid attention in my training classes. Before they ever allowed us on the range we had to demonstrate our understanding and knowledge of many aspects of handling and carrying a firearm, ,most importantly when you can lawfully shoot and claim self-defense.

Our instructors were very adamant that when you start carrying a firearm, you have to change your behavior if you don't want the emotional and financial expenses of being tried for UNLAWFULLY killing someone, if you're successful, and/or the possible loss of life and/or freedom if not.

You don't insert yourself into volatile situations, you put your ego in check and walk away from a lot of things that are nothing but stupidity and words which can only hurt your pride. You don't insert yourself into other people's conflicts and you learn how to deescalate certain situation if possible, if you can't, then just remove yourself from the situation. Protests can turn into riots or other dangerous situations not just from the rioters but from law enforcement as well if they can't distinguish you from the rioters, vandals looters, etc.

Kyle has no one to blame but himself for the situation he's in now. This is what happens when people with no background, training or knowledge of the law think it's okay to pick up a weapon (unlawfully) and travel across state lines with it (unlawfully) and join in "the fun".

People who don't possess the knowledge or common sense to keep their own selves safe, yet for some reason some of you think that it's not only lawful but a good idea for these same people to attempt to detain and//or arrest others for violations of laws. That is insane on it's face.
He didn't take the gun across state lines.
 
He shouldn’t have been in Wisconsin at all, armed or unarmed.

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

Local businesses were in no need of Rittenhouse’s ‘protection’ – motivated by racism and hate, Rittenhouse willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation armed to murder; he can make no claim to ‘self-defense.’
Racism, huh? How many black guys did he shoot again? And last I checked, it's hardly peaceful and lawful to try to set cars on fire.
 
The gun was Kyle’s, illegal purchased by Black who is facing charges for it.
Technically it was Black's gun, not Kyle's. It was legally purchased by Black and stored in a gun safe at Black's home.

According to sworn testimony, they had a verbal agreement that Kyle would loan the money to Black so Black could buy the gun, but when Kyle turned 18 a few months later, Black would sell the gun to Kyle for the amount of money he had loaned to Black to buy the gun.
 
Technically it was Black's gun, not Kyle's. It was legally purchased by Black and stored in a gun safe at Black's home.
Nope. Black bought it for Kyle with Kyle’s money for Kyle’s use.

That’s illegal.

The “loan” arrangement makes no sense. It wasn’t a loan. Kyle already paid for the gun. The sale would be just for appearances.
 

Forum List

Back
Top