Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.

And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.

If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.

Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.

Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus.

As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.

1. The intention and actual action of the group was legal and it worked. No one is talking about tracking them down and arresting them for their actions.

2. Are you admitting that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense?

3. We don't know the results of the autopsy yet. Those other wounds could be friendly fire.

4. And a person in a life or death self defense situation, is giving some lee way, for the "pucker factor" "in the presence of an raised knife".

Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.

As far as the teen murderer, I have no doubt he acted in self defense. But his intent veered from self defense to reckless homicide after he continued shooting his victim after neutralizing him. There's also the possibility he was not legally allowed to be in possession of any firearm and by violating that law, he can't claim self defense.

Sadly, all you're capable of doing is mindlessly posting memes. Real men refute arguments.

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

 

[Doc7505]

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer​

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer
30 Aug 2020 ~~ By Civis Americanus
Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.
This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

Rodef = One Who Pursues
A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.
[Snip]
None of this article constitutes legal advice. I believe, however, it is consistent with prevailing self-defense laws and also common sense. A rodef cannot menace others, pursue others to instigate or perpetuate confrontations, or corner others while making overt or implied violent threats, and retain even one shred of any mantle of innocence should anybody get hurt. It is up to readers as to whether they agree. Fightback.law, which features the prominent attorney Lin Wood who is representing Melissa Rolfe against Equity Prime Mortgage LLC, is collecting money to support Rittenhouse's defense.


Comment:
I firmly suggest you read this and compare this case to the latest assassination of of the Patriot For Prayer identified as Joey Gibson.
Gibson was not pursuing or attacking someone/anyone, yet he was killed callously by Michael Reinoehl.
Will the Portland Police Chief/Mayor call for the arrest of Reinoehl? Will Reinoehl surrender himself to the authorities? I don't think so....
That is the difference between law abiding individuals as compared to anarchist terrorists espousing Communist ideology..

 

[jc456]

nd in that time, they have shown that they randomly attack people, especially anyone that shows any hint of standing out from the mob, god forbid, actual disagreement.


Thus, combined with the behavior we see on the video, and it is reasonable to conclude that your marxist mob was the aggressor

Exactly what the third reich did

 

[Turtlesoup]

Actually, I think they are.

I guess it is all a big mistake that he faces murder charges as an adult? There was no way he could of avoided this situation?

No---its an abuse of prosecuturial powers and the prosecutor trying to score political points better hope that the tide isn't changing because she/he/it has opened itself up for civil and criminal charges themselves. They better hope like hell that none of its fellow dem prosecutors or mayors says the wrong thing about using their office to go after anyone who stands up the riots to effect the elections---because that will trigger conspiracy and racketeering charges that William Barr will have a field day with and trial lawyers will see them bankrupted with.

 

[jc456]

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer​

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer
30 Aug 2020 ~~ By Civis Americanus
Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.
This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

Rodef = One Who Pursues
A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.
[Snip]
None of this article constitutes legal advice. I believe, however, it is consistent with prevailing self-defense laws and also common sense. A rodef cannot menace others, pursue others to instigate or perpetuate confrontations, or corner others while making overt or implied violent threats, and retain even one shred of any mantle of innocence should anybody get hurt. It is up to readers as to whether they agree. Fightback.law, which features the prominent attorney Lin Wood who is representing Melissa Rolfe against Equity Prime Mortgage LLC, is collecting money to support Rittenhouse's defense.


Comment:
I firmly suggest you read this and compare this case to the latest assassination of of the Patriot For Prayer identified as Joey Gibson.
Gibson was not pursuing or attacking someone/anyone, yet he was killed callously by Michael Reinoehl.
Will the Portland Police Chief/Mayor call for the arrest of Reinoehl? Will Reinoehl surrender himself to the authorities? I don't think so....
That is the difference between law abiding individuals as compared to anarchist terrorists espousing Communist ideology..

It was a mob attack

 

[Faun]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

LOLOLOL

******* moron, take another look at who jc responded to ... it wasn't me.

You're such a ******* moron, you actually kick your own ass.

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

LOLOLOL

******* moron, take another look at who jc responded to ... it wasn't me.

You're such a ******* moron, you actually kick your own ass.

If that pathetic victory makes you feel better, you're welcome to it.

 

[Faun]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

LOLOLOL

******* moron, take another look at who jc responded to ... it wasn't me.

You're such a ******* moron, you actually kick your own ass.

If that pathetic victory makes you feel better, you're welcome to it.

That's just one more added to the pile I need a ladder to toss more on.

 

[freyasman]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.

The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon. View attachment 382121

You think the bad judgement displayed by "Let's go down and check out the riot, make sure they don't burn everything down; we'll roll heavy and deep for safety.", is actually worse than committing felony assault on someone? And the fact that they're willing to attack someone armed indicates a willingness to take it to a lethal level?

You really think that?

 

[elektra]

Are you saying people do not have the right to go to work in another state?

Are you saying he was on his way to work? That his work required him to borrow an assault rifle? And that work was in the middle of a riot. And that he was allowed to break the emergency curfew?

Hmmmmm . . . . no, that isn't what he said. Why don't you read it again and tell us where you see any of what you claim.

hmmmm, I did not say what you stated, I asked questions, nothing more. Your comprehension skills are non-existent.

 

[freyasman]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

 

[Turtlesoup]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

LOLOLOL

******* moron, take another look at who jc responded to ... it wasn't me.

You're such a ******* moron, you actually kick your own ass.

You just can't help yourself. You are so far behind already and yet you just keep going. Bless your little black heart.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

Are you always this dramatic as you clutch your pearl necklace, Karen? I have sent no one to prison.

You and your ilk certainly have.
And the fact that you have no remorse for that is a pretty damning indictment of your character.

LOLOL

Let me make a note to let you know when I give my first shit what a con thinks about my character.

Don't bother.

When I've had enough of trash like you on the planet with me, you'll get an eviction notice that will be pretty damned clear.

 

[elektra]

He went to Kenosha. Is that not allowed by you?

He broke the curfew, is that allowed? He left his mom's apartment, stopped in Wisconsin to get an assault rifle, then purposely joined a riot.

17 year old boys have less rights than an 18 year old. But guess what, he gets to act like an adult and get charged with murder like an adult. Under my supervision and guidance, the boy never ever would of went to the riot. From what you say, from what you post, you have no problem with a boy putting himself in a situation where he now faces murder charges.

It really dont matter if you are right or wrong, it is obvious now, that nobody should follow your belief that it is perfectly okay to enter a riot with an assault rifle. If one does what you believe he will find himself in Jail for murder.

 

[bripat9643]

He went to Kenosha. Is that not allowed by you?

He broke the curfew, is that allowed? He left his mom's apartment, stopped in Wisconsin to get an assault rifle, then purposely joined a riot.

17 year old boys have less rights than an 18 year old. But guess what, he gets to act like an adult and get charged with murder like an adult. Under my supervision and guidance, the boy never ever would of went to the riot. From what you say, from what you post, you have no problem with a boy putting himself in a situation where he now faces murder charges.

It really dont matter if you are right or wrong, it is obvious now, that nobody should follow your belief that it is perfectly okay to enter a riot with an assault rifle. If one does what you believe he will find himself in Jail for murder.

You have made it perfectly clear that you believe rioting is OK. They're free to assault and possibly murder law abiding citizens.

You're a douchebag.

 

[Flash]

The Moon Bats think we should all succumb to Left Wing hate, destruction and oppression.

That is how the filthy Left have gained power in other countries. By the dumbasses letting them get away with it.

 

[freyasman]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

Because the government doesn't care about our rights.

There is no reason at all why we shouldn't own those items if we wish.

 

[Faun]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

You have to feel sorry for FAUX. He's getting his ass kicked all over the forum.

LOLOLOL

******* moron, take another look at who jc responded to ... it wasn't me.

You're such a ******* moron, you actually kick your own ass.

You just can't help yourself. You are so far behind already and yet you just keep going. Bless your little black heart.

LOL

Dumbfuck, that conversation didn't even involve me. Have you always been this stupid?

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

Are you always this dramatic as you clutch your pearl necklace, Karen? I have sent no one to prison.

You and your ilk certainly have.
And the fact that you have no remorse for that is a pretty damning indictment of your character.

LOLOL

Let me make a note to let you know when I give my first shit what a con thinks about my character.

Don't bother.

When I've had enough of trash like you on the planet with me, you'll get an eviction notice that will be pretty damned clear.

LOLOL

As if you were man enough to evict me.