The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Rigby5]

Cool story bro.

Post the law that supports your claim........unless it's the 1907 Geneva Conventions.

{...
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1)(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally 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. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
...}

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

There is a huge amount more, but too much to cut/paste.

 

[Rigby5]

What is your point here? Rosenbaum attacked first. You know this, right?

And, why do you say the witnesses are dodgy?

Does not matter who attacked whom first.
The point is there was no weapon being used against Kyle, so then he could not legally escalate to the use of a deadly weapon.

 

[Rigby5]

There were armed people all over the fucking place in Kenosha that night - rioters and non-rioters alike. Everybody saw them out and about and paid no attention to them. There was no reason for anyone to think Kyle was a potential active shooter or that he, more than the other armed people, was a particular threat.

Not having been there, I can only go by the written accounts, and they said there was only 1 other armed person, and that they were staying on a particular property they were defending

In contrast, Kyle was the only one carrying a rifle into the crowd, in what could only be an attempt to intimidate people.
An act everyone felt was extremely offensive, intimidating, and provocative.

And we have the proof.
No one else was attacked or shot anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

The remedy, of course, would be to charge those officers with crimes, and put them on trial, and let a jury decide if they acted illegally or not Too bad that wasn't done.

Oh, wait. It was done, exactly, and the jury came back with “Not guilty”. The evidence presented at the trial simply does not match up with the story that you are no trying to tell thirty years after it happened.

Everyone knows the police were guilty.
But everyone also knows the police are tight with the prosecutors and judges, so it was not a real trial, but a mockery instead.
The judge and prosecutor can easily throw any case they want, such as Rittenhouse having the charges dropped for a juvenile in possession of a firearm.
The judge absurdly claimed that only applied to short barreled firearms, which is ridiculous.
Clearly Kyle did not qualify for any of the 4 possible exemptions from the law, and the short barrel reference was not an exemption from the law, but instead was a refinement to block the hunting exemption, if the hunting weapon had a short barrel.

But it is a surprise to remember it was 30 years ago.
Seems like only a couple of years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

{...
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1)(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally 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. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
...}

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

There is a huge amount more, but too much to cut/paste.

Thanks for the link......

"Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm"

Which part supports your claim? Was it this part?

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Because that looks like it says he did have the legal right.

 

[Rigby5]

In this case, yes, he absolutely did. Your opinion does not override established law regarding self-defense. He was attacked with potentially deadly force, so he absolutely had the right to employ deadly force to defend himself.

That he happened to be in possession, at the time, of a better weapon than the one with which a subhuman criminal piece of shit was trying to attack him does not, in any way, diminish his right, under those circumstances, to use that weapon to defend himself.

Oh, and what potentially deadly force was Rittenhouse attacked with?
What I read is that a grab was made for the barrel of the rifle, and that no actual attack or threat was made at all.
Later a skateboard is not a lethal weapon.
The last of the 3 had a pistol, but it was pointed up when Kyle shot him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does not matter who attacked whom first.
The point is there was no weapon being used against Kyle, so then he could not legally escalate to the use of a deadly weapon.

Your feelings are very convincing.

Beyond your feelings, the last 2 assclowns did have weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks for the link......

"Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm"

Which part supports your claim? Was it this part?

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Because that looks like it says he did have the legal right.

What lethal threat did Kyle face?
There was no weapon being used against him, so then he did not have the legal recourse of escalating to a firearm.

 

[Rigby5]

Your feelings are very convincing.

Beyond your feelings, the last 2 assclowns did have weapons.

A skate board is not a weapon, and it was safely on the ground after being thrown.
The third guy had a pistol, but he also was a legal MedTech in full uniform, and had raised his hands in the air by the time Kyle shot him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Later a skateboard is not a lethal weapon.

Excellent!!!

I'd like to hit you on the head with one.

Would 3 hits be enough to show you the error of your ways?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What lethal threat did Kyle face?
There was no weapon being used against him, so then he did not have the legal recourse of escalating to a firearm.

What lethal threat did Kyle face?

There was the crazy child rapist who threatened to kill him, chased him and grabbed for his rifle.

There was no weapon being used against him

Where did you get the idea that you can only shoot an attacker if he has a weapon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A skate board is not a weapon, and it was safely on the ground after being thrown.
The third guy had a pistol, but he also was a legal MedTech in full uniform, and had raised his hands in the air by the time Kyle shot him.

A skate board is not a weapon

Look at that thing. Heavy, sharp edges....that thing will knock you out, maybe kill you.
And then trying to grab the rifle, bad idea.

and it was safely on the ground after being thrown.

Thrown? Hardly.

Did you mean the dead guy dropped it?

The third guy had a pistol,

Yeah, he had a pistol.

and had raised his hands in the air by the time Kyle shot him.

Pointed gun....raised hands.....pointed again.

 

[toobfreak]

The point is there was no weapon being used against Kyle,

Seriously? I thought one guy pulled a gun on him while the other tried to beat him with a skateboard!

so then he could not legally escalate to the use of a deadly weapon.

Then how did he get off for self-defense?

 

[toobfreak]

A skate board is not a weapon

Really fool? You mean it can't be USED as a weapon?

I could kill you with a skate board. I mean, we are supposed to believe Floyd was killed just with a knee! I guess a knee isn't a weapon either? Then why is Floyd dead? I could kill you with a pencil, hell, I could kill you with my finger.

 

[toobfreak]

But everyone also knows the police are tight with the prosecutors and judges, so it was not a real trial, but a mockery instead.

Then why is Derek Chauvin in prison for 22 years?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The remedy, of course, would be to charge those officers with crimes, and put them on trial, and let a jury decide if they acted illegally or not Too bad that wasn't done.

Oh, wait. It was done, exactly, and the jury came back with “Not guilty”. The evidence presented at the trial simply does not match up with the story that you are no trying to tell thirty years after it happened.

Everyone knows the police were guilty.

The jury disagreed with you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Later a skateboard is not a lethal weapon.

Any solid, heavy object, is a deadly weapon, when you swing it at someone's head.

That it might not be as good a weapon as a rifle wasn't Mr. Rittenhouse's problem, but that of the subhuman criminal piece of shit that stupidly brought a skateboard to a gunfight.

In any event, the human gene pool is better, and society as a whole is better, for having that bit of vermin, along with one other, properly exterminated.

The only reason you don't get this is that judging by the company that you choose to keep, you yourself must be a subhuman criminal piece of shit, and therefore can be expected to take the side of your own kind against that of any actual human beings.

Same reason why, thirty years after the fact, you are taking the side of Rodney “The Piñata” King—a habitual, drug-abusing, violent repeat felon; in other words, another example of your kind. Fortunately for Humankind, Rodney “The Piñata” King had the courtesy to remove itself from the living almost a decade ago, but unfortunately, not before it polluted the human gene pool by producing three known offspring.

 

[Dr Grump]

What is your point here? Rosenbaum attacked first. You know this, right?

And, why do you say the witnesses are dodgy?

Was more talking about Martin with the witnesses. With Rittenhouse I've see the vid so witnesses are not as important because most of us saw if for ourselves. In saying that, my point was that without either Zimmerman or Rittenhouse being where they were (and this is the same with the Abary -sp? - case, too) it never would have happened.

You guys seem to have the impression that I am against Zimmerman and Rittenhouse in terms of what they did no matter what the circumstances. If Martin was armed and had been scoping houses and was known to be breaking into them, then sure, I get the reaction. That wasn't the case.

As for Rittenhouse, he is an immature little boy who has seen too many movies. He was a fucking idiot. As I said before, they all were....including the men who got shot.

 

[JoeB131]

BLM only exist as a murdering destructive organization because stupid confused White Guilt pukes like you let them get away with their destruction.

The BLM filth were successful in their destruction because the irresponsible Democrat leadership in the big city shitholes let them do whatever they wanted.

Actuallly, they had the good sense to not escalate an already bad situation.

When I was in the National Guard in the 1980's, only about a decade after Kent State, a very wise officer who was conducting the training said to us, "When you are called out on Civil Disturbance Operations, those are not the enemy out there. Those are your fellow citizens, they are damned angry about something and they have every right to be."

Property damage is bad, but it's just not that big of a deal. the fact that you and other white racists like Mormon Bob consider white property more valuable than black lives is why we had riots to start with.

 

[JoeB131]

As usual, you're missing a few details inconvenient to your narrative, but since it's an article of faith for you, you will simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Nothing that happened that night justified what Zimmerman did. He's a bully who picked on a black child, and then murdered him when he was getting his sissy white ass kicked.

Baloney. They were the only stores in the area. Koreatown is still there.

You don't get why the Korean Stores were the target of the ire of the black community.

Your damned photo shopped sign is bull crap because it wasn't all white people that had an issue with the King movement you fricken idiot. If anything you are a con artist/perpetrator damned racist or race baiter from hell, just like anyone else is for using the term white people as if it includes all white's, and the term black people as it that includes all black's. There is a difference in character's you knuckle head, and it has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, although skin color is being targeted by idiot's who undoubtedly didn't complete the 3rd grade of life. Now squirm yourself back into your hole in which you crawl from everyday, and let the adult's debate the issues.

I'm sure there were some decent white people who were fine with what Dr. King was doing, but at the end of the day, Civil Rights were only acheived at a human cost of people who died.

Should be like that. Should be, "Hey, if all men are created equal in this country, I shouldn't have to ride on the back of the bus." It never should have been a discussion, but it was.

White people ONLY care about others when it's their property and lives that are threatened.... shouldn't be like that, but it is. Otherwise, we STILL wouldn't be having these discussions 54 years after Dr. King's assassination at the hands of the government a racist.