Rittenhouse

[RandyForRubio]

Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two other people. Pointing the gun at him was 100% justified. So that said, I find it strange that you can easily an unequivocally call Rittenhouse's use of deadly force self defense but are unsure if the other guy had justification to use deadly force. Based on our current laws, which are flawed and should be changed, both of them had every right to shoot the other. Self defense all around.

Let’s run this scenario again (and probably again).

Grossenkreutz TESTIFIED IN COURT that Rittenhouse did not have his gun pointing at him. That he approached Rittenhouse with his arms in the air, and nothing happened. Then Grossenkreutz admitted that after that he drew his gun on Rittenhouse and advanced, and that’s when Rittenhouse fired. Again, that is testimony from Grossenkreutz. So nothing happened to Grossenkreutz until he pointed his gun at somebody. The only people that were shot were people that physically attacked or pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. That’s textbook self defense. Whether he should have been there or not is irrelevant to the legality of it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Can you really be defending yourself when you created the threat that drew people to you that you now have to defend yourself from? This opens a huge can of worms for precedent. Does that mean that active shooters can defend themselves from the police, since the police are threatening them? Or from other people who threaten them, like a janitor fighting back with a broom? The merry-go-round of self defense has to stop somewhere, otherwise we are just allowing chaos.

So who created the threat?

The rioters?

The people with guns “defending” private property?

The rioters that decided it would be smart to chase somebody with a gun?

 

[Gameface]

Let’s run this scenario again (and probably again).

Grossenkreutz TESTIFIED IN COURT that Rittenhouse did not have his gun pointing at him. That he approached Rittenhouse with his arms in the air, and nothing happened. Then Grossenkreutz admitted that after that he drew his gun on Rittenhouse and advanced, and that’s when Rittenhouse fired. Again, that is testimony from Grossenkreutz. So nothing happened to Grossenkreutz until he pointed his gun at somebody. The only people that were shot were people that physically attacked or pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. That’s textbook self defense. Whether he should have been there or not is irrelevant to the legality of it.

You are allowed to point your gun at someone who you consider to be a threat. Rittenhouse had just shot and killed two people. Grossenkreutz would be smart to consider him a threat. That means that he is allowed by law to point his gun at him. So if he had gotten the shot off first then he would have legally defended himself from being shot by Rittenhouse.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Rittenhouse had just shot and killed two people. Grossenkreutz would be smart to consider him a threat. That means that he is allowed by law to point his gun at him. So if he had gotten the shot off first then he would have legally defended himself from being shot by Rittenhouse.

The bolded comment is fairly debatable.

I think had Grossenkreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse, he probably could’ve gotten off by claiming self defense. Although I’m not sure…can your shoot somebody who was defending themself? That’s different than an active shooter. Rittenhouse only shot because he was defending himself, therefore he’s only a threat to somebody that attacked him.

 

[Avery]

It would be a very M. Night Shyamalan twist to see him get convicted.

 

[fishonjazz]

Can you really be defending yourself when you created the threat that drew people to you that you now have to defend yourself from? This opens a huge can of worms for precedent. Does that mean that active shooters can defend themselves from the police, since the police are threatening them? Or from other people who threaten them, like a janitor fighting back with a broom? The merry-go-round of self defense has to stop somewhere, otherwise we are just allowing chaos.

I mean if I ever feel like hurting someone I guess its totally fine if I just run around yelling **** you at everyone. Then if someone gets mad at me for yelling that at them and comes my direction I have the right to defend myself (I feel threatened by the person approaching in an angry manner) and stomp the person into the ground.

 

[fishonjazz]

Let’s run this scenario again (and probably again).

Grossenkreutz TESTIFIED IN COURT that Rittenhouse did not have his gun pointing at him. That he approached Rittenhouse with his arms in the air, and nothing happened. Then Grossenkreutz admitted that after that he drew his gun on Rittenhouse and advanced, and that’s when Rittenhouse fired. Again, that is testimony from Grossenkreutz. So nothing happened to Grossenkreutz until he pointed his gun at somebody. The only people that were shot were people that physically attacked or pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. That’s textbook self defense. Whether he should have been there or not is irrelevant to the legality of it.

Exactly. So its perfectly legal for me to run around with my gun and swear at people in the hopes that one of the people Im swearing at gets mad and pulls a gun and points in my direction cause then its perfectly legal for me to shoot them.

He went there in the hopes he would get to shoot someone and he got his wish.

 

[fishonjazz]

The bolded comment is fairly debatable.

I think had Grossenkreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse, he probably could’ve gotten off by claiming self defense. Although I’m not sure…can your shoot somebody who was defending themself? That’s different than an active shooter. Rittenhouse only shot because he was defending himself, therefore he’s only a threat to somebody that attacked him.

If I hear a gunshot and turn around and see someone with a gun then I have no idea if they are defending themselves OR are an active shooter. I better shoot them just in case they are an active shooter to defend myself right?

 

[Gameface]

The bolded comment is fairly debatable.

I think had Grossenkreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse, he probably could’ve gotten off by claiming self defense. Although I’m not sure…can your shoot somebody who was defending themself? That’s different than an active shooter. Rittenhouse only shot because he was defending himself, therefore he’s only a threat to somebody that attacked him.

Yes, our current laws are DAF. I posted an example earlier of a shootout that happened in Utah several years ago where two dudes were completely justified in thinking the other was up to no good and a threat and both of them were armed and they shot at each other. I think only one was injured but they both had legitimate reasons to defend themselves from the other one. We need laws to clarify these situations and to make what Rittenhouse did not qualify as self defense. Right now it is legal to put yourself in danger, intentionally and then shoot your way out of danger. It is currently legal to carry a gun and instigate a violent confrontation and then use your gun to solve the violent confrontation you started. Rittenhouse will be found not guilty because our current laws are BAD.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Yeah my guess is that bringing a large openly visible weapon to an emotionally charged situation is a good way to guarantee you will have to use that weapon. Hell, carry around a Samurai sword in the same context and odds are you will find yourself in a situation where you feel you have to swing it to protect yourself.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

So he is guilty of murdering the other dude who carried a weapon i to this situation, was threatening, out of control, attacking, etc?

Ironic you aren't on here condemning the dude who got shot, or that he isnt on trial for attempting to murder Rittenhouse.

My question was rhetorical BTW. You've already stated that you would bust off caps blindly like. Cowboy vigilante if a mob yelled that someone was a shooter. Anything added after this is taken with a lb of salt.

 

[babe]

Like many 'stand your ground' and self-defense laws, I expect that the prosecution will not be able to definitively improve intent. That's not an easy thing to do in legal circles. Rittenhouse will likely be found not guilty based on that alone.

What he is guilty of his interjecting himself into a situation in which he had no formal training nor need to interject. That's not a criminal charge, but one of common sense. I have no doubt that he saw himself as trying to act as some protector, but that's not his place and he helped instigate further unrest where plenty of it could already be found.

For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.

I would not have gone into that zone, for sure.

well, maybe not. If my business was burning, I'd probably go, with an AR15, with some extra clips. I'd probably shoot at the air a bit and yell a lot. I might also go if somebody else I knew was trying to put out fire in his business. dunno really. Point is, we have the right to defend and protect property and lives, whether it's our own or not.

rioters should know that.

 

[LogGrad98]

So he is guilty of murdering the other dude who carried a weapon i to this situation, was threatening, out of control, attacking, etc?

Ironic you aren't on here condemning the dude who got shot, or that he isnt on trial for attempting to murder Rittenhouse.

My question was rhetorical BTW. You've already stated that you would bust off caps blindly like. Cowboy vigilante if a mob yelled that someone was a shooter. Anything added after this is taken with a lb of salt.

Harsh.

I don't think anyone should have had a gun there except the police. I also don't think a single person deserved to die. But don't bother trying to say the same thing, you've made it very clear you fully support vigilante justice and that it is always self-defense as long as the people you shoot die. Anything you say from this point will be taken with a ton of salt.

Metric ton. I'm not a Philistine.


See, everyone can do that. Condescension is easy.

 

[babe]

Yes, our current laws are DAF. I posted an example earlier of a shootout that happened in Utah several years ago where two dudes were completely justified in thinking the other was up to no good and a threat and both of them were armed and they shot at each other. I think only one was injured but they both had legitimate reasons to defend themselves from the other one. We need laws to clarify these situations and to make what Rittenhouse did not qualify as self defense. Right now it is legal to put yourself in danger, intentionally and then shoot your way out of danger. It is currently legal to carry a gun and instigate a violent confrontation and then use your gun to solve the violent confrontation you started. Rittenhouse will be found not guilty because our current laws are BAD.

Good sense will usually keep most people out of this kind of trouble. Except in a riot or insurrection or war, the absolute nature of our rights makes your idea of a good law simply wrong. Absolutely wrong. It basically makes our rights subject to arbitrary nullification by lawmakers and/or judges. This is the very definition of BAD GOVERNMENT.

oUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PERTAINS MOSTLY TO EXACTLY "DANGEROUS" SITUATIONS.

 

[One Brow]

Ironic you aren't on here condemning the dude who got shot, or that he isnt on trial for attempting to murder Rittenhouse.

You need an attempt for attempted murder. Grosskreutz didn't fire when he had the advantage.

 

[babe]

Very true. Maybe there wasn't a curfew after all. Do you have evidence, or are you JAQing off?

JAQ = "Just Asking Quastions"

I wasn't there, and I didn't see you there.

I have a negative notion of media coverage and opinion talk together. I was trying, once again, to raise a few questions in your own views perhaps even worth checking out against whatever evidence can be found.

It looks to me like there is an organized Establishment assault on individual property rights and other rights. Paid gangs of rioters burning down cities where they know the commie prosecutor will smile and sing Burn Baby Burn. One more capitalist down for the count. And if people try to stand up against it, they are the ones prosecuted.

As Fish notes above, maybe a lot of the rioters/looters got arrested. How many were just bailed out and put back on the Burning Bus?

I actually have not seen any of this, and my questions here come up from what's on the news and the likes of Hannity and Levin.

Actually, I think Sonnie Johnson is the most reliable and best informed on the general urban scene. David Webb is by far the most solidly grounded talk show host.

Did you know that Virginia's new Governor-elect actually had his team get input from some of Sonnie's friends, and even reached out to her, before going to Richmond's "Black Wall Street". The news on the street was that he was so interested in what he was learning, he even put of Trump so he could get this input.

Sonnie is a street organizer for federalism. In case you have the common mistaken notion of what "federalism" means, it means putting the real power back on the street. In more local jurisdictions. With less top-down meddling.

yo.l That means the cop on the beat answers to grandma.

 

[JazzyFresh]

S* Tabloids and Logbrowns propaganda networks won't show. Robots

 

[One Brow]

I wasn't there, and I didn't see you there.

Which says nothing and means nothing. Thanks for playing.

I actually have not seen any of this, and my questions here come up from what's on the news and the likes of Hannity and Levin.

Both well-known for JAQing off.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Harsh.

I don't think anyone should have had a gun there except the police. I also don't think a single person deserved to die. But don't bother trying to say the same thing, you've made it very clear you fully support vigilante justice and that it is always self-defense as long as the people you shoot die. Anything you say from this point will be tyaken with a ton of salt.

Metric ton. I'm not a Philistine.


See, everyone can do that. Condescension is easy.

Harsh?

Harsh.

I don't think anyone should have had a gun there except the police. I also don't think a single person deserved to die. But don't bother trying to say the same thing, you've made it very clear you fully support vigilante justice and that it is always self-defense as long as the people you shoot die. Anything you say from this point will be taken with a ton of salt.

Metric ton. I'm not a Philistine.


See, everyone can do that. Condescension is easy.

Harsh? Your previous stance is disturbing to say the least. How is anyone supposed to consider anything you say on this after stating you would murder someone without any facts, context, or evidence outside of a crowd yelling shooter + you seeing a gun. Murder first, ask questions later.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You need an attempt for attempted murder. Grosskreutz didn't fire when he had the advantage.

You're trying too hard to rabble rouse in this thread.

 

[Archie Moses]

There’s a couple things I think are true.

1) If Rittenhouse doesn’t take his rifle, he doesn’t kill anybody.

2) If people aren’t attacking the kid with a gun, pointing their gun at him, chasing kid with a gun, etc, etc, they aren’t going to get killed or shot.

It’s unfortunate situation, truly, but legally, it just isn’t murder. The witness for the prosecution said that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until the witness pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. That’s clearly self defense. And I’ve seen a lot of people rag on Rittenhouse bringing a rifle (rightfully so imo), but those same people never have an issue with the guy who got shot illegally having a weapon as well. Stupid people played stupid games, and now people are dead. It’s sad, unfortunate, but legally, it ain’t murder.

1. Should be - If people weren't being destructive and rioting, he wouldn't bring his gun and be a vigilante. There's blame on both sides, 100%.

Reading this thread makes me sad. It's a bunch of grown men arguing their POV on the issue while denying any thought or understanding for their opposition. Not everyone, but a lot.

One thing I think we can all agree on is no one wanted this to happen (at least I hope.)

I hate guns. They take way too many lives in dumb situations that could easily be resolved without the use of deadly force.