Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,683
- 2,635
Sadly, all you're capable of doing is mindlessly posting memes. Real men refute arguments.Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus."It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.
Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.
It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.
He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.
It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.
Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.
The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.
It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.
And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.
If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.
Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.
As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.
1. The intention and actual action of the group was legal and it worked. No one is talking about tracking them down and arresting them for their actions.
2. Are you admitting that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense?
3. We don't know the results of the autopsy yet. Those other wounds could be friendly fire.
4. And a person in a life or death self defense situation, is giving some lee way, for the "pucker factor" "in the presence of an raised knife".
As far as the teen murderer, I have no doubt he acted in self defense. But his intent veered from self defense to reckless homicide after he continued shooting his victim after neutralizing him. There's also the possibility he was not legally allowed to be in possession of any firearm and by violating that law, he can't claim self defense.
![]()