Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[dblack]

How's the excuses coming?

 

[Correll]

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Illinois residents who are minors are not allowed to borrow assault rifles and confront rioters in Wisconsin. He created the situation where as he had to murder two people.

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

 

[elektra]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.

 

[elektra]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

 

[Correll]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

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.

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.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

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.

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.

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".

Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.

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.

1. Their intent was not to use lethal force. Their intent was to use the threat of lethal force to deter rioting. And it worked and none of them are arrested or charged for their actions.

2. You admit he acted in self defense? Well, good for you. That contradicts the insane overcharging of first degree murder.

3. Firing extra rounds, which has not been demonstrated and might not be true, is common in a life and death situations. It would be a great injustice to slam a 17 year old for such an understandable reaction. That violates the Principle of the Raised Knife.

 

[Correll]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

 

[elektra]

You have made it perfectly clear that you believe rioting is OK. They're free to assault and possibly murder law abiding citizens.

You're a douchebag.

Except of course, I have never said that rioting is okay and if you read my posts, more than once I have stated rioting was wrong.

Law abiding citizens do not break the legal, emergency, curfew, enacted.

So how about sticking to facts when you make points instead of being a filthy liar. I have not lied once, I have posted the facts and the laws.

It is you and your argument that must leave out the facts to make your point. The boy is in jail for murder. Nothing you state would prevent others from going to jail for murder if they decide to do the same as this boy.

Facts piss you off, huh!

 

[Correll]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

It is likely he was just standing there. He tried to rejoin his group and was prevented by the police, thus isolating him and the antifa types are known to use spotters to vector in hit teams onto isolated individuals or smaller groups.

The video we see is all of Rittenhouse trying to get away from a mob of violent attackers who kept pursuing him.

Standing there, or walking around, even with a rifle is not justification for assault.


You are siding with the violent mob against the mob's would be victim.

You want to see an innocent man go to prison, for partisan political purposes.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

Are you always this dramatic as you clutch your pearl necklace, Karen? I have sent no one to prison.

You and your ilk certainly have.
And the fact that you have no remorse for that is a pretty damning indictment of your character.

LOLOL

Let me make a note to let you know when I give my first shit what a con thinks about my character.

Don't bother.

When I've had enough of trash like you on the planet with me, you'll get an eviction notice that will be pretty damned clear.

LOLOL

As if you were man enough to evict me.

Go to the Korengal Valley, ask around about me...… I guarantee you, they remember me.

 

[lantern2814]

You have made it perfectly clear that you believe rioting is OK. They're free to assault and possibly murder law abiding citizens.

You're a douchebag.

Except of course, I have never said that rioting is okay and if you read my posts, more than once I have stated rioting was wrong.

Law abiding citizens do not break the legal, emergency, curfew, enacted.

So how about sticking to facts when you make points instead of being a filthy liar. I have not lied once, I have posted the facts and the laws.

It is you and your argument that must leave out the facts to make your point. The boy is in jail for murder. Nothing you state would prevent others from going to jail for murder if they decide to do the same as this boy.

Facts piss you off, huh!

You are a pathetic liar. You have left out the obvious self defense WIN this young man will get. Attacked with a skateboard. One asshole had a Glock pulled. You have lied about the law and his intentions every time you open your lying yap. Like every other leftard here, you’re getting your ass kicked by FACTS. Facts hurt you little leftist brain don’t they?

 

[freyasman]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

 

[freyasman]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.

This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.

 

[elektra]

.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

If that was true, nobody would go to jail for murder. There are plenty of people who lose when they face a Jury, and this young man has to beat all 6 charges. Of course there may be more charges than just six. It will not be easy.

If the kid really believes he is innocent he should just have a trail with a judge. If he is smart he gets a lawyer that pleas the case to lesser charges.

 

[freyasman]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

"running into a peaceful riot"


"peaceful riot"




LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Correll]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

I wonder if they can argue against extradition based on not getting a fair trial with those lunatics?

 

[Correll]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

"running into a peaceful riot"


"peaceful riot"




LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yeah, I caught that. The pretzel logic these lefties have to do, to hold all their conflicting ideas in their heads at one time, is unbelievable.

 

[freyasman]

.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

If that was true, nobody would go to jail for murder. There are plenty of people who lose when they face a Jury, and this young man has to beat all 6 charges. Of course there may be more charges than just six. It will not be easy.

If the kid really believes he is innocent he should just have a trail with a judge. If he is smart he gets a lawyer that pleas the case to lesser charges.

What about it is not true?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Will anyone take a bet that Lin Wood knows more about the law than elektra?

 

[bripat9643]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

It's a rifle. The defense attorney will point out that far more people are killed with hand guns than with rifles. Furthermore, this won't even go to trial.

 

[elektra]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

"running into a peaceful riot"
"peaceful riot"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

yet, the post that states, he was simply, standing there, is not as funny, if you are to be honest with yourself?

I guess there is only one side that can falsely claim what happened. Of course, you called out the other post as not to be a hypocrite? Or you did not recognize the absurdity my post mocks. That rittenhouse was simply standing around and found himself in a life or death situation?