No, Kyle turned and had his rifle briefly facing/aimed at Grosskreutz first, to which Grosskreutz sort of surrendered/cowered, then Kyle started to lower his rifle again. Grosskreutz then moved further towards him with his pistol in one hand facing Kyle.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
No, Kyle turned and had his rifle briefly facing/aimed at Grosskreutz first, to which Grosskreutz sort of surrendered/cowered, then Kyle started to lower his rifle again. Grosskreutz then moved further towards him with his pistol in one hand facing Kyle.
It is the bottom line.
Making threats or even starting to act on them by running towards somebody, or doing whatever doesn't necessarily constitute 'imminent death' or 'great bodily harm' read the jury instructions.
It's explicit and it's clear; you either have to be, or believe to be at the point of imminent death, or sustaining great bodily harm (disfigurment, maiming etc), not just taking a kicking, to lawfully use lethal force, it's not ambiguous.
And I think this is where the defense is going to struggle, because Rosenbaum was unarmed and essentially barely even laid a finger on Rittenhouse, who incidentally came out of the whole thing without barely a scratch on him, and two people are dead and others seriously injured.
Nah, just that guy telling him he was gonna kill him then starting to chase him. No threat there.
That's not what's being decided, what matters is whether or not the force used was proportional and reasonable to the threat being posed. You don't get to use lethal force because somebody was yelling threats at you, that's like how things were in the wild west.
The problem here is the disregard for human life, Rittenhouse didn't really try any other means to resolve the situation, you could argue he ran away - but to just turn and execute the guy at close range, whether his hand was on the barrel or not, I think he's going to struggle to get a not guilty verdict.
None of that is what's happened.
I might as well claim Rosenbaum had a sword and a crossbow.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Completely outside reality, even flat earthers make more sense.
Well we will have to disagree on this point as if someone like rosenbaum was within a few feet coming at me aggressively I would believe I am about to sustain great bodily harm, regardless of if he is armed or not, he is a big well built guy who has been angry and aggressive. You have no idea if hes just gonna give you a gentle kicking or end up stomping on your head until you are dead.
Once he is "on you" so to speak, your weapon, especially one of the size of an AR15 is next to useless.
You need to watch the video again.
Because pistol guy said he did those things in court!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
So if i tell armed police, i will steal your gun, but i will not harm anyone, its for a bet.
And then run at them?
What will happen?
Trevor Timon has been convicted of killing bank worker Oliver Dearlove with a single punch.
Robert's death was caused by the force of one punch severing an artery in his brain.
Jacob Dunne was 19 when he killed 28-year-old trainee paramedic James Hodgkinson with one punch in 2011.
Her son, Kyle, a 21-year-old Royal Navy sailor, suffered a fatal brain injury after being punched in Portsmouth on 5 May 2009.
Twenty-three people have died in Northern Ireland from "one-punch attacks" since 2004, police have said.
While no official figures are available on one-punch deaths, the campaign group One Punch Can Kill has recorded more than 80 fatalities since 2007.
The are many times on this forum that i am left somewhat bemused by the apparent dearth of critical thinking skills displayed.
The critical 'juncture' for the use of (lethal) self defence surely has to be the last point at which the person claiming to have used self defence could reasonably of exercises their ability to defend themself unimpeded by the action of the person they claimed was going to/ was attacking them.
So for example it would not be proportionate to shoot an unarmed person running at you from 50m away even if you genuinely believed they wanted to kill you. Because you would have ample time to issue a verbal warning and may be able to pull back maintaining crucial distance between you and the would be assailant.
But it's risible to suggest that when someone physically larger than you threatens to kill you persists in chasing you and then lunges at you that you life isn't at imminent risk. Once it turns into a physical fight and potential struggle over a long rifle Rittenhouse is already almost certainly going to have much less chance to exercise any ability to actually defend himself.
It's nonsensical to suggest that Rittenshouse should have to wait until he is physically being pummelled by the much larger Rosembaum to take action because anyone with any common sense should realise that by this point it is almost certainly too late to actually be able to do anything to defend yourself.
After Rosembaum when have the guy that tried to jump kick him to the head who was fired at but not hit, skater board man who struck Rittenhouse with the board and would have tried again had he not been shot and last the guy who pointed the pistol at him.
All clear examples of a person being at imminent risk of serious injury or death.
I still maintain that a lot of posters cannot get past the mental block of Rittenshouse carrying the gun in the first place.
On that basis they pronounce him guilty apparently being unable to understand that open carry is legal in many places in the US and that the charges relating to carriage of the firearm itself have been dropped as Rittenshouse was deemed to be within the letter of the law here.
I don't , because that is literally what happened.
Feel free to take some screen caps to prove your point rather than the imaginary series of events you seem to have been watching.
*cue evasive post incoming*
Precedents are set in law all the time, but this wont be such a case.
Pretty much this. And because he had a gun he has to get the living snot beaten out of him first before hes allowed to use it
I think you're seeing it from the wrong perspective.
In order to be found not guilty of first degree reckless homcide, it has to be shown that the defendant's actions were reasonable and proportional to the threat, in order for it to be lawful self defense.
The fact that Rosenbaum was unarmed and was killed with a rifle at point blank range, I think hurts the defense's case, a lot. Whether or not Rosenbaum made threats, was giving chase or whatever.
Not sure I agree.
In the final confrontation Kyle is on the floor, has been kicked and hit with a skateboard, somebody even has a hold of his AR15 - he still manages to kill somebody outright and practically blow someone else's arm to bits in the process before getting up and calmly walking towards the cops, I wouldn't say he was useless.
Not gonna waste time on silly hyperthetical scenarios.
It makes no sense to defend Rittenhouse's actions, claiming it would have essentially been 'game over' if Rosenbaum had gotten hold of him, whilst citing the final confrontation where he'd been kicked in the head, hit with a skateboard - and still managed to shoot someone dead, almost shoot another, and almost maim somebody else.
It's also silly, to suggest that if you're armed and a bigger person runs towards you making threats, that the only course of action you can reasonably take is to shoot them dead.
And this is what it boils down to; is it reasonable.
I'm not sure it is - I think we'll likely get a couple of guilty verdicts, but I'm not really sure on exactly which charges.
Don't mean to be pedantic, but at the time of the offence Rittenhouse was 17 and below the legal age to open carry.
My understanding is that they didn't file charges for this, due to the magnitude of the rest of the case, but I haven't read much into it.
Last edited:
How on earth is it imaginary when it is exactly what happened?
https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg?t=17 (warning graphics etc)
Because they ended up putting distance between themselves and the weapon. If they had stayed on top of him / got hands on the gun he wouldnt have been able to do so.
Its obvious you can't see past the gun as being omni powerful. It a magic wand that defeats all opponents, and can only be used if you are actually near to death.
That makes no sense. Which is why the law isn't phrased like that.
That's not true and has been corrected a zillion times. if you keep bringing it up its either through willful ignorance, or deliberate disinformation.
How on earth is it imaginary when it is exactly what happened?
https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg?t=17 (warning graphics etc)
That's not what they used in trial.
You don't see pistol guy pointing the gun at kyle.
Ypur as bad as the state. Show bad video.