Kyle Rittenhouse sued by estate of Joseph Rosenbaum

[Soupnazi630]

What's my name?

Dumbass

 

[Auld Phart]

Did he shoot anyone?

He didn't have a chance, Kyle 'disarmed' him before he could pull the trigger.

 

[Billo_Really]

He didn't have a chance, Kyle 'disarmed' him before he could pull the trigger.

Well, then the answer is, 'no'.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I think the SD verdict was wrong!

I am aware. I am also aware that I we both think Rittenhouse is going to have problems in a civil trial. SO I will note which version we are discussing. On the criminal side, do you believe that Rittenhouse's carrying of a rifle obviated his right to self defense? If yes, then how do you square that with the others also carrying firearms?

ON the civil side I will agree, its more of an issue as self defense really isn't the standard.

 

[Billo_Really]

I am aware. I am also aware that I we both think Rittenhouse is going to have problems in a civil trial. SO I will note which version we are discussing. On the criminal side, do you believe that Rittenhouse's carrying of a rifle obviated his right to self defense? If yes, then how do you square that with the others also carrying firearms?

ON the civil side I will agree, its more of an issue as self defense really isn't the standard.

What does obviate mean?

 

[Zincwarrior]

What does obviate mean?

IN this context - eliminate or set aside.

 

[Auld Phart]

What's my name?

stupid?

 

[Billo_Really]

IN this context - eliminate or set aside.

Then no. Everyone has the right of self defense as long as you are not the aggressor.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Then no. Everyone has the right of self defense as long as you are not the aggressor.

Rittenhouse was not the aggressor

Absolute fact boy

 

[Billo_Really]

stupid?

Okay, that's a position I have a hard time arguing against.

 

[Auld Phart]

Then no. Everyone has the right of self defense as long as you are not the aggressor.

Everyone has the right of self defense as long as you are not the aggressor.

unless you are Kyle.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Did he shoot anyone?

Irrelevant. You claimed that by simple virtue of his bringing a gun to the protest that he went there with the express intention of shooting someone. If that's true then it's also true of Grosskreutz and everybody else who went there armed.

You should know (if you don't know already) that Grosskreutz has a criminal record, two arrests of which were firearm related.

He has been arrested twice for possessing a firearm while intoxicated. In addition to these he has been arrested for and/or convicted of domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, two DUIs and felony burglary.

It's ironic that for all the vitriol and demonization of Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to the protest, Grosskreutz was the one who actually violated firearm regulations. Not only did he have the two arrests for firearm possession while intoxicated as noted above, his conceal carry permit was expired the night of the shooting so he's the one who was illegally armed.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The Rittenhouse trial was total BULLSHIT. The judge was obviously biased in his favor.

The incident should have been broken into 4 separate incidents:

Rittenhouse instigated the first confrontation and threatened the first victim. Rittenhouse should not have had a gun in the first place. So he was guilty of illegal gun possession and threatening a person with a gun.

The second incident was when Rittenhouse ran away from the first victim, and the first victim pursued him (wow, can you get any stupider!). Rittenhouse was clearly trying his best to disengage the confrontation. The first shooting was clearly an act of self defense.

The second shooting was also an act of self defense. The second victim attacked him with a skateboard and was trying to bust his skull open.

The third person he shot was obviously trying to reason with him an calm him down. He never should have shot the third person. He was guilty on that one.

Moral of the story: KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN!!!

 

[Auld Phart]

The Rittenhouse trial was total BULLSHIT. The judge was obviously biased in his favor.

The incident should have been broken into 4 separate incidents:

Rittenhouse instigated the first confrontation and threatened the first victim. Rittenhouse should not have had a gun in the first place. So he was guilty of illegal gun possession and threatening a person with a gun.

The second incident was when Rittenhouse ran away from the first victim, and the first victim pursued him (wow, can you get any stupider!). Rittenhouse was clearly trying his best to disengage the confrontation. The first shooting was clearly an act of self defense.

The second shooting was also an act of self defense. The second victim attacked him with a skateboard and was trying to bust his skull open.

The third person he shot was obviously trying to reason with him an calm him down. He never should have shot the third person. He was guilty on that one.

Moral of the story: KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN!!!

Rittenhouse instigated the first confrontation and threatened the first victim.

How did he instigate the first confrontation? By putting out the dumpster fire?

The third person he shot was obviously trying to reason with him an calm him down.

By pulling a firearm he was, according to laws of the state, not allowed to own, much less carry?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The Rittenhouse trial was total BULLSHIT. The judge was obviously biased in his favor.

The incident should have been broken into 4 separate incidents:

Rittenhouse instigated the first confrontation and threatened the first victim.

Wrong. Rosenbaum instigated it when Kyle extinguished his dumpster fire.

Rittenhouse should not have had a gun in the first place. So he was guilty of illegal gun possession and threatening a person with a gun.

Wrong.

1.) It was determined that he did not obtain or possess the rifle illegally so the judge barred that from the trial because it was not relevant to the shooting.

2.) Kyle threatened no one with the rifle. When he extinguished the dumpster fire, Rosenbaum became enraged, threatened Kyle and then chased him. Even being armed with the rifle, Kyle ran from Rosenbaum and tried to get away. It wasn't until he was cornered in a parking lot and Rosenbaum tried to take his rifle from him that Kyle fired.

The second incident was when Rittenhouse ran away from the first victim, and the first victim pursued him (wow, can you get any stupider!). Rittenhouse was clearly trying his best to disengage the confrontation. The first shooting was clearly an act of self defense.

Correct.

The second shooting was also an act of self defense. The second victim attacked him with a skateboard and was trying to bust his skull open.

Correct.

The third person he shot was obviously trying to reason with him an calm him down. He never should have shot the third person. He was guilty on that one.

Wrong. Grosskreutz was trying to detain him and had his own firearm in his hand while doing so.

Moral of the story: KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN!!!

Moral of the story: DON'T ATTACK SOMEONE ARMED WITH AN AR JUST FOR PUTTING OUT YOUR ARSON FIRE AND WHO IS OTHERWISE NOT BOTHERING OR THREATENING YOU.

 

[Hum Dinger]

How did he instigate the first confrontation? By putting out the dumpster fire?


By pulling a firearm he was, according to laws of the state, not allowed to own, much less carry?

Was the dumpster fire threatening anyone's life? Was lethal force justified?

Did Rittenhouse ask the third guy if his gun was legally owned or not before he shot him?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Was the dumpster fire threatening anyone's life? Was lethal force justified?

Rosenbaum wasn't shot over the dumpster fire, he was shot when he tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle from him.

Did Rittenhouse ask the third guy if his gun was legally owned or not before he shot him?

What?

 

[Auld Phart]

Was the dumpster fire threatening anyone's life? Was lethal force justified?

Did Rittenhouse ask the third guy if his gun was legally owned or not before he shot him?

Was the dumpster fire threatening anyone's life? Was lethal force justified?

he didn't use lethal force because of he dumpster fire, he used lethal force because he was personally being attacked.

Did Rittenhouse ask the third guy if his gun was legally owned or not before he shot him?

Is someone points a gun at you, are you going to ask if he legally owns it before you defend yourself?

 

[Leo123]

Rosenbaum wasn't shot over the dumpster fire, he was shot when he tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle from him.


What?

Richie just makes it up as he goes along.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

How much did CNN give Kyle? Has that been settled yet?