If Gaige Grosskreutz shot Kyle Rittenhouse dead, would it have been self defense?

[Coyote]

Not only no, but hell no.
Gaige was a felon in possession of a firearm.
I think he had a intoxication charge pending also

Gaige was not a felon, do you guys ever stop lying?

 

[Coyote]

Of the hundreds of people Rittenhouse passed between shooting the child rapist and shooting Huber, how many people did he shoot?

Doesn’t mean anything. You are talking a span of minutes, where he already shot and killed an unarmed man, someone else apparently fired shots in the air…multiple gunshots, guy with a high powered firearm running and people shouting “he just shot somebody”…all in the setting of angry, volatile and tense situation. You think people will pause and run through your active shooter checklist before reacting?

 

[Abatis]

You think everyone who isn’t a rabid rightwinger like you is a commie. It has become meaningless.

Rittenhouse also admitted he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed but he shot him anyway. Point is, at that moment in time, as far as anyone knew, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Jesus H Christ, Rosenbaum wouldn't have been shot if he didn't grab the barrel of the gun. Rosenbaum had damage to his hand and gunpowder residue around the wound . . . The flash-hider was in his hand. The attempt to disarm is an action that allows deadly force.

Any cop will tell you, in a gun grab situation the perp is no longer considered "unarmed" even if the perp isn't in complete control of the gun. When there is a fight for the weapon, it isn't the "good-guy's" gun or the "bad guy's" gun . . . It is just THE GUN.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rittenhouse also admitted he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed but he shot him anyway.

Because Rosenbaum had a hold of his gun and was trying to disarm him.
That makes him a threat.

Point is, at that moment in time, as far as anyone knew, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.

 

[Coyote]

Because Rosenbaum had a hold of his gun and was trying to disarm him.
That makes him a threat.

Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.

At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.

 

[themirrorthief]

No.

only idiot libs would chase someone with a loaded assault rifle life is not a tv show

 

[M14 Shooter]

At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.

You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.

I have the luxury of reality supporting my position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

only idiot libs would chase someone with a loaded assault rifle life is not a tv show

Indeed.
Why -does- someone chase an active shooter armed with a weapon of war, if not to harm him in some way?

 

[Abatis]

Indeed.
Why -does- someone chase an active shooter armed with a weapon of war, if not to harm him in some way?

Or on a death-wish of his own. At the gas station, after the dumpster fire was extinguished by Rittenhouse and others, Rosenbaum was strutting around, running up to and screaming at anyone with a gun, for them to shoot/kill him (Koerri Washington testimony and video from that night).

 

[2aguy]

Or on a death-wish of his own. At the gas station, after the dumpster fire was extingushed by Rittenhouse and others, Rosenbaum was strutting around, running up to and screaming at anyone with a gun for them to shoot/kill him.

It’s simple, really…….the left are insane. Evan Sayet has a video on YouTube where he explains exactly how they think…I think it is one of the best explanations on leftists I have seen…..

 

[Coyote]

Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.

And none of this was known at time.

I have the luxury of reality supporting my position.

You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.

 

[Abatis]

And none of this was known at time.


You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.

We do know from video and testimony of the erratic aggressive behavior of Rosembaum and the taunts of people quite well equipped to kill him . . . to kill him.

None of this works to Rosenbaum being a innocent, non-confrontational, non-suicidal non-combatant.

Now, after the fact, in a court of law where everyone's actions and intents are being scrutinized, the fact that Rosenbaum was released from a mental facility earlier that day because he attempted suicide, does inform people willing to weigh the information, a perspective of the nights events.

Yeah, it is hard to believe a sane, reasoned person repeatedly runs up on strangers holding AR-15's screaming for them to kill him . . . However, for a hostile, suicidal criminal, it suddenly doesn't seem out of character . . . Nor does a child predator picking the one guy he saw earlier at the gas station, the meek, baby-faced young guy who multiple people say looked nervous and even scared, and chase him down, confronting him physically, grabbing at the kid's gun once you catch him.

You need to gauge whose actions were out of character and Rosenbaum's fit like a glove if one is considering a violent predator with suicidal tendencies.

No, none of that was known that night but its obvious then to anyone who saw him the dude was a kook, now the video and testimonial proof that he was a sucicdal kook should inform the jury.

 

[2aguy]

And none of this was known at time.


You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.

Nothing you just posted changes his self defense...even if they actually believed what you say they believed and they didnt, they are lying in order to justify their violent attempt to maim or kill kyle....they were wrong and attacked him...allowing him to defend himself...Andrew Branca covererd this at legal insurrection.....you should try reading his work.

 

[armadei]

At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.

WRONG.

Grosskruetz admitted on the stand that he had no direct evidence of Rittenhouse shooting anyone and only acted on hearsay. Furthermore - an "active shooter" implies, you know, ACTIVE SHOOTING, which Rittenhouse was NOT doing when Grosskruetz first approached him.

Tell me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial without telling me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial....

Moreover, even if Rittenhouse's attackers legitimately believed they were trying to stop an "active shooter" his right to self defense is not overridden if he isn't committing a crime, regardless of their intentions.

Let me put it to you this way (I assume you're a woman by some of your posts): You come home one day and find your husband trying to stab your children to death. You attempt to stop him. There's a lot of screaming and yelling in the process and in the chaos you manage to get the knife away from your husband and stab HIM to prevent the attack on your children. But in the meantime your neighbor hears the ruckus. He comes over, looks through the window and sees you attacking your husband with a knife. Knowing NOTHING about what had taken place just second prior, he busts in and tries to grievously assault/kill you to prevent you from grievously assaulting/killing your husband. You stab/kill him in the process.

Was he being a good samaritan? Yes. Did he know the context? No. Are you guilty of murder? NO. Your right to self defense still applied.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

WRONG.

Grosskruetz admitted on the stand that he had no direct evidence of Rittenhouse shooting anyone and only acted on hearsay. Furthermore - an "active shooter" implies, you know, ACTIVE SHOOTING, which Rittenhouse was NOT doing when Grosskruetz first approached him.

Tell me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial without telling me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial....

Moreover, even if Rittenhouse's attackers legitimately believed they were trying to stop an "active shooter" his right to self defense is not overridden if he isn't committing a crime, regardless of their intentions.

Let me put it to you this way (I assume you're a woman by some of your posts): You come home one day and find your husband trying to stab your children to death. You attempt to stop him. There's a lot of screaming and yelling in the process and in the chaos you manage to get the knife away from your husband and stab HIM to prevent the attack on your children. But in the meantime your neighbor hears the ruckus. He comes over, looks through the window and sees you attacking your husband with a knife. Knowing NOTHING about what had taken place just second prior, he busts in and tries to grievously assault/kill you to prevent you from grievously assaulting/killing your husband. You stab/kill him in the process.

Was he being a good samaritan? Yes. Did he know the context? No. Are you guilty of murder? NO. Your right to self defense still applied.

Nooooo.

Gunshots would've been heard by everyone.

Kyle had just killed two men and was running down the street with an AR15 in his hands while people yelled that he was the killer.

A reasonable person could assume he was an "active shooter."

Not like such an attack is unheard of in America.

 

[2aguy]

Nooooo.

Gunshots would've been heard by everyone.

Kyle had just killed two men and was running down the street with an AR15 in his hands while people yelled that he was the killer.

A reasonable person could assume he was an "active shooter."

Not like such an attack is unheard of in America.

Sorry, even if true it doesn’t change the self defense actions by Kyle. And again….when the Active Shooter isn’t shooting anyone, doesn’t fire until threatened or attacked, holds fire when Gaige had his hands up and only shoots when he points his gun at Kyle….the “we thought he was an active shooter” lie doesn’t work…

 

[M14 Shooter]

And none of this was known at time.

It was. Active shooters actively shoot, usually indiscriminately. Rittenhouse was doing neither.

You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.

Uh-huh.
What did Rittenhouse observe at the time?

 

[Rust_Cohle]

What about this is hard to understand

Gayge ran up on a downed Kyle, feigned surrender then ran up and pointed a glock (illegally concealed and carrying) at his head

Kyle defended himself against a handful of you antifa scumbags

 

[Rust_Cohle]

And none of this was known at time.


You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.

Anyone who actually watched videos of what happened knew this. Maybe stop getting your propaganda from the MSspin

 

[wamose]

The aggressors are the ones doing the chasing and yelling to kill Kyle. The chasers got what they bargained for, stupid fucks that they were. Kyle just defended himself.