Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

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.

The threat of lethal force is irrelevant since they can't actually use lethal force if someone attempts to destroy the property. Should that happen, they can't be legally shot.

As far as self defense, the first round was self defense. Rounds 2, 3 and 4 are homicide.

What is self-defense?

Under Wisconsin state law, a person “is privileged … to use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.” In plainer terms, you can use force against another person if you reasonably believe force is necessary to prevent the imminent death or serious bodily injury of yourself or another.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.

FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin

This article answers commonly asked questions regarding the legal argument of self-defense.

www.nglawyers.com

 

[Faun]

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.

He's not innocent.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable

Of course it's self defense.

He'll be ok.

He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.

Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.

Nope. He's going to be just fine. He might develop a real hatred for democrats but that's all.

You ever been prosecuted to benefit someone's agenda, despite doing nothing wrong?
I have.


He's going to have a very different outlook on just about everything after this, and that's best case.

I have not. I was treated as a criminal after having been the victim of an armed carjacking. It was the first time I heard "you should not call the police if you are insured."

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

 

[Faun]

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.

You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?

 

[jc456]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

How dare he call the cops on a druggy thief and a guy with a history of attacking other people. It is all zimmermans fault for daring to care about his community and try to stop the violent criminals which trayvon absolutely was.

PUll your head out of the sand and get a clue...buy a vowel if you have to.

Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Call the cops and leave it alone. Let them handle it. We don't need pretend cops instigating problems that leave other people dead.

Bull chit--------------he was casing the neighborhood peeking into homes and their fenced areas to break in at a later date. He was snagged with stolen jewelry and a burglary kit.......criminals casing homes to rob do look suspicious. And fyi, he had no money and no job and his dad was a dead beat so he had no other means but to rob to get his drug money. Wanna play some more? Want talk about where he got the guns he was pictured with or the drugs he was also pictured with?

Bullshit.

You have no proof that he was casing the neighborhood.

Yes we do---------he was a criminal and his suspicious behavior of peeking into peoples homes and yards out in the rain is what caught zimmerman (who is part black btw) attention. Again, casing is very noticeable and suspicious. Trayvon was a violent druggy stealing criminal---as such he was suspicious and got snagged.

You keep saying that yet you still don't have proof of it.

Wanna say it some more? That's cool. It still won't be proof.

What do you think druggy thief Trayvon was doing in the rain that day? Zimmerman saw the thief peeking into peoples homes and enclosed areas as per his phone call to the police dispatch before trayvon got himself killed.

Still not proof.

Honey, there isn't a crow bar big enough in the world to get your head pulled out of your behind to listen to facts and reason. You are like a child who covers their ears and screams. You need to grow up. Trayvon was a thief--he was casing the neighborhood----and poor dem zimmerman was attacked for having a white sounding name and trying to protect his neighborhood. Then he was railroaded because it scored Obama and his crew of communist marxist morons political points by motivating the weak minded want-to-be victims to vote and vote illegally. Such stupid tools---who keep covering their ears and screaming.

Oh and I have nasty habit of dealing with morons who want the last word by spinning nonsense by repeating myself over and over---I'm obnoxious that way.

Neat. Let me know when you have proof though.

Seems like you’re having a real hard time with that.

I gave you proof. Are you always an asshole?

 

[jc456]

Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable

Of course it's self defense.

He'll be ok.

He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.

Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.

Nope. He's going to be just fine. He might develop a real hatred for democrats but that's all.

You ever been prosecuted to benefit someone's agenda, despite doing nothing wrong?
I have.


He's going to have a very different outlook on just about everything after this, and that's best case.

Self defense

 

[elektra]

Kid shouldn't have been there, but that's not the same as having no right to be there. And it sure as hell doesn't mean he can't defend himself.

If a woman invites me into her bedroom and her husband violently objects, I still have a right to keep him from killing me for it, even though I never should have been there.

If a woman invites you into her bedroom, and you stop off at a friends to get an assault rifle, and the husband walks in, and you shoot him while he has no weapon, it is going to be awful hard to prove you feared for your life.

How in the hell can you fear for your life while you are prepared to kill with an assault rifle?

I do not see it as being self-defense. The kid made the choice to join a riot armed and ready to kill. You can not join a riot and kill somebody then claim it was simple self defense. He could of just as easily as walked away. He could of dropped the clip and ran with the gun. He could of kept the clip dropped the gun and ran.

This kid made the choice, to join a riot, armed, prepared to kill. It might be different, if the kid could show somebody was beating him up or did something more than have a bag thrown at him or been chased.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I gave you proof. Are you always an asshole?

You don't even know what's being discussed. Nobody is disputing that Zimmerman was found innocent.

Read before you respond.

 

[elektra]

He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.

There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.

Then why do you state, "he was simply standing".

Having an assault rifle, is most certainly a provocation. The fact that they attempted to take the assault rifle away shows it was a provocation.

Or, having seen a boy with a man's weapon, they assumed a bit too much, and then attempted to take it away.

Like I have said repeatedly, the kid was pretty stupid.

 

[dblack]

He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.

There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.

Then why do you state, "he was simply standing".

Having an assault rifle, is most certainly a provocation. The fact that they attempted to take the assault rifle away shows it was a provocation.

Or, having seen a boy with a man's weapon, they assumed a bit too much, and then attempted to take it away.

Like I have said repeatedly, the kid was pretty stupid.

I'm sure the original militia invite stressed that they were only there to provide first aid. With guns.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"
(Kyle is 17, so not applicable.)

He was not hunting, unless of course, rioters are, "in season".

Are you attempting to stumble upon a point?

 

[Jarlaxle]

It’s trial stupid

No kidding, one trail of maybe many more to come. Now the boy sits in jail, pondering why he was so stupid as to get himself charged with murder.

You think you out to do the same thing, get on a plane and go to riot, first of course finding an assault rifle to take with you?

The word is TRIAL, you illiterate nitwit, not trail!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Where, EXACTLY, does the law state he must be hunting? Cite the statute.

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.

No, but defending yourself from a pack of feral thugs (at least three with serious criminal records) is self-defense!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Have your eyes checked. That did not happen.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We (and by "we" I mean sane, patriotic Americans, not Trumpsters) don't do vigilante justice. If you buy yourself a fancy rifle and go kill someone, it doesn't matter whether you think they have it coming. You're still a murderer.

Good thing there was no "vigilante justice" here.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, I think they are.

I guess it is all a big mistake that he faces murder charges as an adult? There was no way he could of avoided this situation?

No---its an abuse of prosecuturial powers and the prosecutor trying to score political points better hope that the tide isn't changing because she/he/it has opened itself up for civil and criminal charges themselves. They better hope like hell that none of its fellow dem prosecutors or mayors says the wrong thing about using their office to go after anyone who stands up the riots to effect the elections---because that will trigger conspiracy and racketeering charges that William Barr will have a field day with and trial lawyers will see them bankrupted with.

Or (and note: this was posted by an attorney) the prosecutor KNOWS the case is a loser, so he is making the charges as over-the-top as possible, to get the case broomed by a judge.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.

The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon. View attachment 382121

You think the bad judgement displayed by "Let's go down and check out the riot, make sure they don't burn everything down; we'll roll heavy and deep for safety.", is actually worse than committing felony assault on someone? And the fact that they're willing to attack someone armed indicates a willingness to take it to a lethal level?

You really think that?

She does not think...she emotes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

What plea bargain? There will be no trial, there will be no jury...because the case will probably be broomed by the first judge that hears it.