New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[meaner gene]

It's your fantasy, as the event actually happened, and none of what you are saying did.

But in part it did. An armed citizen saw a protester breaking into the Capitol and used his weapon to stop them.

So were you O.K. with that?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Actually let's stick to a "real" situation. Citizens watching the attack on the Capitol on January 6th on TV, came to the defense of the Capitol, by bringing arms, and shooting protesters they see breaking into the building, or protesters attacking capitol police officers.

Would you be O.K. with that?

Most of the Capitol attackers were FBI, or paid protesters that they hired.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact that he is actually running for his life pretty much negates the need for stand your ground, which Wisconsin does not have. He was attempting to retreat.

The fact he was running from those who intended to harm him proves "reasonable fear".
There were three of them, two with weapons, chasing an obviously armed person. Thus, the necessity of force.

The fact that this matter is even going to trial is as big of an injustice as I can imagine. This is political persecution.

Unquestionably.

 

[meaner gene]

What do think would happen, had these supposed armed citizen-defenders of the government opened fire into the crowd of 30,000 heavily armed protestors, the overhwelming majority of who were committing no crime?

Actually the "heavily armed" crowd were committing a crime by merely being in possession of those weapons.

And as soon as they tried to use them, they would become legal targets. No doubt the carnage would have been remarkable depending on the number of armed citizens involved.

 

[Rogue AI]

But in part it did. An armed citizen saw a protester breaking into the Capitol and used his weapon to stop them.

So were you O.K. with that?

That little tiff in January isn't my thing. Show some evidence. You have proven your word can't be taken at face value.

 

[Muhammed]

You claimed that Kyle had been given instruction, and said the definition was ambiguous. Well federal code defines instruction, and your example comes nowhere close to meeting any government definition of instruction.

The Wisconsin law Kyle is being charged with does not cite that definition or any other irrelevant OSHA regulation, dumbass. You're just grasping at straws by bringing up OSHA.

The Wisconsin law Kyle is charged with never defines what constitutes traditional instruction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the "heavily armed" crowd were committing a crime by merely being in possession of those weapons.

Not in any way necessarily so.

And as soon as they tried to use them, they would become legal targets.

Wait...
The people not committing a crime are attacked, they draw their weapons to defend themselves, and then become legal targets?


You're desperate, and it shows.

 

[meaner gene]

Let's say, for example, one of the protestors set a rolling dumpster on fire and was attempting to shove the dumpster into the capital building to set it on fire. Yes, I think it would be reasonable to use deadly force to stop it. That could result in serious injury or death.

Would you be okay with that?

I would agree if not for that situation being impossible. The capitol is built on a hill, and the dumpster would have to climb the stairs in order to roll into the Capitol.

Maybe you could put forth a better example.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Heroes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A course of instruction requires instruction on handling a firearm.

Did you see that bicep shot?

He handled the shit out of that firearm.

 

[meaner gene]

The people not committing a crime are attacked, they draw their weapons to defend themselves, and then become legal targets?


You're desperate, and it shows.

It's a crime in Washington DC to be in possession of a firearm without a license. Anyone in the crowd with a weapon was committing a crime.

 

[meaner gene]

Heroes

View attachment 549217

Yet had they used their firearms to defend the US Capitol against protesters, you would call them villains.

Strange.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a crime in Washington DC to be in possession of a firearm without a license.

Thus, your assumption of criminal behavior by the crowd is invalid.
Try again.

 

[Muhammed]

Actually both as a matter of logic, and as a matter of law, the defense has to prove the elements an affirmative defense against the prosecutions documentary case.

On the shooting cases, yes, he must that provide an affirmative defense that he shot in self-defense, which he obviously did. That's very clear from the video.

He does not need to provide an affirmative defense to the weapon charge.

And on top of that, the 2nd amendment of the US constitution supersedes the state law.

 

[Faun]

The evidence is on video. He is clearly obeying the instructions of an adult. And that's besides the point. The state must prove that traditional instruction never occurred. They have to prove a negative.

The crooked prosecutor is just wasting taxpayer money.

The prosecutor should be disbarred for malicious prosecution.

Now you're lying. There is no video of anyone giving Rittenhouse instructions how to handle that firearm, which even he knew was illegal for him to carry.

 

[Faun]

Did you see that bicep shot?

He handled the shit out of that firearm.

Aside from a witness saying he wasn't handling it well, that matters not. The law doesn't make exceptions for handling the shit out of a firearm at his age. The exception is being "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kyle was under adult supervision. Video evidence shows him being supervised by a veteran army medic.

Apparently that hilariously desperate and stupid claim was rejected.

 

[horselightning]

Rittenhouse’s defense argues weapon used to kill BLM protesters justified by hunting laws

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager who fatally shot two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, are […] The post Rittenhouse’s defense argues weapon used to kill BLM protesters justified by hunting laws appeared first on TheGrio.

www.yahoo.com

the mans trials are comining up. the defense is trying to get him out the illegal arms violation.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Did the judge agree?

 

[harmonica]

..if someone is attacking /coming after him, how can that not be self defense?