Illegally carrying concealed firearms too.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Illegally carrying concealed firearms too.
Au contraire. Rosenbaum being at, point blank, because he put himself there by chasing and lunging at Rittenshouse having already quite clearly articulated what he would do it such a scenario (kill him) should support the case of self defence.
Again it's clearly not reasonable to expect someone to actually let a situation develop to the point the are actually being being attacked by an assailant, because in many cases this would already be too late to be able to actually act to defend oneself.
Again the ability to understand any nuance appears to have been entirely discarded.
There is a difference between
1) someone may still be able to act after a particular attack
vs
2) someone should be expected to wait until after the same attack before they could use a gun to defend themselves
I fly kick you to the head or strike you over the head with a skateboard then there is a good chance I knock you out of otherwise render your ability to defend yourself from further attacks severely compromised.
Again your are confusing the actual outcome of an event and the probability of an certain outcome before it.
Someone should not be expected to sustain a fly kick to the head or a blow around the head with something solid like a skateboard before they can use a gun to defend themselves. Because there is a high likelihood that the attack will prevent them from doing so.
It's irrelevant that someone may, after the fact, still be able to defend themselves because the risk to them was still great beforehand.
Again you you seem to completely lack nuance.
The context here is the other person being, as you confirm, at 'point blank' range because they have put themself there by chasing and lunging at you having clearly stated an intention to kill you beforehand!
This has some similarities to the death of Michael Brown in Fergusson.
When he charged at the cop, Darren Wilson, after officer Wilson had left his car Brown was shot repeatedly, at close range.
Officer Wilson, correctly, did not wait until Brown was able to physically attack (in this case again) him and was not charged with any crimes as a result.
So again it's nonsence to suggest that a person must physically actually be being assaulted themselves, at the material time, to be able to defend themselves with a gun vs being at immediate risk of the same assault dur to the proximity of the other person and their other actions.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,743
My bad, I thought that's what the Police are for, I didn't realize heavily armed teenagers were the answer.
Some of the posts in here are just insanity.
Having someone threaten to kill you and attempt to grab your rifle somehow isn't an imminent danger to your life? What, you think he's just going to take your rifle and that's the end of it? Hilarious.
Having a skateboard slammed at your head doesn't constitute grevious bodily harm?
Think some of you watch too many movies.
Having someone threaten to kill you and attempt to grab your rifle somehow isn't an imminent danger to your life? What, you think he's just going to take your rifle and that's the end of it? Hilarious.
Having a skateboard slammed at your head doesn't constitute grevious bodily harm?
Think some of you watch too many movies.
Normally you'd be right, but the police were told to stand down by the mayor. Additionally the police weren't exactly doing much during the BLM riots last year.
If I turn the argument around; essentially, you're saying it's reasonable to shoot somebody who kicks you, or hits you with a skateboard, merely on the basis of what might or might not come afterwards.
I don't think that's a solid or reasonable argument to use lethal force.
It doesn't really, another poster made a poorly worded comment about what would happen if you threatened a police officer and tried to get his gun.
For a start Michael Brown was under arrest at the time for an offence, and tried to wrestle the gun away from a police officer. The first question that springs to mind would be motive; He wouldn't be doing such a stupid thing to just disarm or beat up the police officer.
So the two cases are totally uncomparable, and it's pointless conflating them.
Yes I am saying its entirely reasonable to shot someone who has already hit you around the head with a solid article, fly kicked you to the head and is likely to immediately do the same or a similar act again.
Irrelevant to whether the officer was acting in self defence when he shot brown.
Yes and wasn't in the act of doing this when he was shot. But his intention to do it (again) could clearly be inferred from his prior actions and hence the officer was right to shoot him before he was able to physically attack him on the second confrontation.
Much like it's entity reasonable to infer Rosenbaum intentions to take the gun and kill or cause serious injury to Rittenhouse based on his prior actions which included threatening to kill Rittenshouse, chasing after him and lunging at him at 'point blank range'
Incorrect.
In both cases the respective assailants (Brown and Rosenbaum) where not physically attacking the other person at the time lethal force was used by the other party.
But their clear intention imminently kill or at least cause severe injury could be clearly inferred from their prior actions/ words.
Answer to what question though? What police? In all these video's the one thing you don't see is police.
How is he heavily armed. In effect this is the least armed he could be (and still be armed) as law doesn't allow him anything else.
Hits you with a skateboard while pulling at your rifle.
Kicks you while you're on the ground.
You like leaving out the context.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Too many start from the incorrect position that unarmed means not dangerous. If you are armed and an unarmed person is capable of overpowering you and taking the weapon, guess what? This is why US police are under no obligation to duke it out with someone just because they don’t have a gun.
As was said earlier, they can't get past the gun, or using it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
Amen, Brother.
Exactly this and furthermore when it comes to self defence (or defence of another) the police have no additional powers or rights in law that let them use lethal force in conditions that members of the public would not also be entitled to use assuming both are otherwise lawfully in possession of a weapon.
You have to apply this to the wording of the law;
"The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself"
In the first encounter with Rosenbaum (count 1) - he barely even touched him, he just chased him around. I'm pretty confident that the force Rittenhouse used, was disproportional compared to the threat from Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, and the defendant knew he was unarmed (because he agreed with the prosecutor under cross examination)
I suspect he'll get found guilty on count 1.
Count 4, on Huber, there are three charges, (first degree intentional homicide, second degree, and first degree reckless homicide)
This one is way more complicated, I think it'll take the Jury ages to come to agreement on this one. I'm in two minds on count 4, I can see how an argument of him thinking his life was in imminent danger, due to the fact that one of them pointed a gun at him, and the position he was in (taking a beating)
The problem is it gets really complicated from the position of the people who went after him, due to the fact that some of them were trying to stop what they thought was an active shooter. honestly - I don't know on count 4.
That's what we have all been saying....since day 1
And this is your first post you actually stated stuff.
At least that's something. and @dowie missed it
It's a miracle!
Anyway, I guess we should get a verdict today... I know it's wrong to be amused by farce as there is someone's life/future at stake but a guilty verdict or two on some lesser charges then the judge declaring a mistrial and the prosecutors having to start all over again next year would be quite amusing!
I'd be very surprised re: the first one Rosenbaum, there was a prosecution witness (the journalist) who supported the defence's claims there + forensic evidence to support the grabbing of the gun + other witnesses referring to death threats... don't see how they can easily get past reasonable doubt there - they've also gone with the crazy guy/off his meds line + it's been introduced that he's out of the hospital that day + the jury can clearly see him as an aggressor/crazy guy in the video footage.
It is the count 4 on Huber that I'd assume is the riskiest (and/or jump kick guy). Maybe second degree or 1st degree reckless?
But then, IF there is one or two of those guilty verdicts, lots of potential for the comedy finish of him walking anyway after the judge declares a mistrial, social media blows up with "muh Trumper judge/white supremacist" etc.. and we get all the schenanegans again next year.
He tried to shot kyle then he saw Kyle's gun pointing at him so moved his right arm to the right.
THEN. The pistol guy started to point his gun at Kyle.
Kyle was quick to see this and fired. It's that simple.
With pistol guys intention to move his gun to Kyles head. He would have killed kyle.
Some of them are blinded by politics/can't seem to bring themselves to be objective and/or make any rational arguments here. Probably supported the officer in the Capitol building who shot an unarmed subject several feet away from him in self-defence* while simultaneously coming out with very tenuous copes re: why Kyle can't claim self-defence in response to arguably far greater threats - actually being assaulted, having a gun pointed at him etc..
As soon as you get people relying on irrelevant talking points about state lines, how he shouldn't have been there, was a vigilante etc.. or stuff about shoot to kill etc.. instead of just putting forth an argument re: why it was or wasn't reasonable force/self defnece given the facts of the immediate threat and context of the riot then it's obvious they're not really serious people, they're just making some uninformed statements. Don't like him or what he did therefore he's a murderer because [insert silly points that have little bearing on his guilt or innocence].
(*that probably was a tad excessive and other officers didn't open fire, she didn't seem to present an imminent serious threat to life through it's arguable, in the heat of the moment etc..etc.. - he could certainly give that justification and the context of the Capitol riot was extreme and I doubt anyone would want to convict him beyond reasonable doubt - it was a legal shooting that was a bit close to the line and caused some controversy.)
Last edited:
Your bad indeed. Its been explained several times how the police were unable to provide any control to the situation.
The first part is with the benefit of hindsight.
The second isn't normal for most adults. You seem to think its unremarkable. Raises all sorts of questions lol!