Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,200
- 2,635
The guy was not all there, if you know what I mean.Rosenbaum was not armed.Was Rosenbaum armed ? The first incident, was it any different than the incident where he shot the guy in his forearm etc ? Otherwise did Kyle think that his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged for him, and yet missing him as Kyle spun around discharging his weapon to end the threat ??I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
No. Which begs the question....why was that moron chasing someone with a gun. He didn't think the guy could turn and put him down ?