(08-28-2020, 09:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Rosenbaum was unarmed, so I find it a tough sell to say the gun shot helps to justify shooting him, but I do think 1st degree is an overcharge. 

(08-28-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get that point of view, but Rittenhouse was running, hears a shot fired from behind him, turns and sees Rosenbaum, and opens fire. While Rosenbaum was unarmed, I can see it as completely reasonable for someone to be in fear for their life in that situation.

(08-27-2020, 06:22 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yeah because he was reaching for that spec of dirt on his floorboard carpet. Dude was just tasered by the cops and resisting. He went to the location of a deadly weapon after that. Use your brain for a second. I know it's hard to actually think for yourself, but you can do it. Anyone with 2 brain cells knows what he was doing.

(08-28-2020, 07:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am officially in the self-defense camp for Rittenhouse. Had the situation just been Rosenbaum chasing him, then I would still be undecided. However, one of the idiots in the crowd fired a shot from his handgun into the air before Rittenhouse stops and fires any shots. After that person fired the shot into the air, Rittenhouse turns around, sees Rosenbaum, and very reasonably in my opinion sees his life in danger and fires at Rosenbaum as that is who is pursuing him. The other two shots as self-defense depended on the status of the first one in my view.

I am still of the opinion he should have been taken into custody by police and that he should be charged with illegal possession of a firearm. However, the homicide charges against him should not hold.

Also, the "Rosenbaum was a pedophile" thing appears to be a fake.

(08-28-2020, 08:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I won't be surprised if another right wing extremist is allowed to kill one or two people and be justified while another minority is handcuffed to his hospital bed while paralyzed after being shot in the back seven times just for having a knife (maybe).

After all the law is the law.



All seriousness aside we still have a gun problem in this country and the Rittenhouse situation is just another example.

(08-28-2020, 09:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Rosenbaum was unarmed, so I find it a tough sell to say the gun shot helps to justify shooting him, but I do think 1st degree is an overcharge. 

(08-28-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get that point of view, but Rittenhouse was running, hears a shot fired from behind him, turns and sees Rosenbaum, and opens fire. While Rosenbaum was unarmed, I can see it as completely reasonable for someone to be in fear for their life in that situation.

(08-28-2020, 10:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If I recall correctly, Rittenhouse had stopped and turned to face Rosenbaum, standing there as Rosenbaum approached, unarmed. It wasn't a quick turn and shoot. 

I understand that hearing gun fire could cause a reasonable fear, but he shot an unarmed man at point blank range. It's not like Rosenbaum had something that even looked like a gun. 

What will impact this is what occurred prior to what's on video. If Rittenhouse goads anyone, Wisconsin law shoots self defense down. 

(08-28-2020, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does "goad" mean?  What are your parameters here?

(08-28-2020, 01:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What happened before the pursuit will matter a great deal. 

(08-28-2020, 01:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm referring to the Wisconsin law on self defense:


"A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense"

What happened before the pursuit will matter a great deal. 

(08-28-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The key part of that law is "with intent to use such an attack as an excuse", which will be extremely difficult to prove.  By his actions in the video it is rather apparent that this kid didn't want this confrontation.  He was immediately on his phone calling 911 saying he had just killed a man.

(08-28-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The key part of that law is "with intent to use such an attack as an excuse", which will be extremely difficult to prove.  By his actions in the video it is rather apparent that this kid didn't want this confrontation.  He was immediately on his phone calling 911 saying he had just killed a man.

(08-28-2020, 01:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, I find the action of taking a gun to an area swarming with people you hate and wouldn't mind using your gun on to be rather bad form, but that's not illegal.  If this thing even goes to trial it's just going to be a wank fest for the people who dream about legally killing people.  Any further attempt to delve into this is just going to give the right wing another George Zimmerman-style anti-hero.

It's like an old timey duel...two people discharge firearms and if you are the guy who intentionally missed in order to send a message and you get drilled it's your own damn fault.

Welp, on to the next shooting.

(08-28-2020, 02:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Technically it was illegal for him to both posses the gun and openly carry it. 

(08-28-2020, 01:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, I find the action of taking a gun to an area swarming with people you hate and wouldn't mind using your gun on to be rather bad form, but that's not illegal.

Quote:  If this thing even goes to trial it's just going to be a wank fest for the people who dream about legally killing people.  Any further attempt to delve into this is just going to give the right wing another George Zimmerman-style anti-hero.

Quote:It's like an old timey duel...two people discharge firearms and if you are the guy who intentionally missed in order to send a message and you get drilled it's your own damn fault.

Welp, on to the next shooting.

(08-28-2020, 02:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We'll see if we get more information. He crossed state lines with a gun he possessed illegally, openly carried it illegally, and was a few blocks away from the site he claimed to be protecting. I'm not sure if his intent wasn't to start some shit. 

I'm trying to make sure I do not refer to either killings as "murder" (I don't think I have), but I have been stating my opinion on acceptable use of force. 

(08-28-2020, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wouldn't be my first choice either.  That being said, they appeared to have good intentions, preventing the looting and burning of businesses.  As I've been saying for some time now, when the local government surrenders the streets to a mob someone is probably going to try and fill that gap.  In Seattle and Portland the gap was filled by the mob.  In Wisconsin it was citizens who actual cared about law and order.



It will certainly be high theater for both sides.  I honestly really feel bad for this kid.  You watch the videos of him cleaning graffiti and explaining that he's there to help protect people and it makes me sad that his life is potentially over at 17.  I know some will view this as my not caring about the two dead people.  If Rittenhouse did not act in self defense than I absolutely do.  If he was, as it appears on the video, then you're right, I don't feel bad for them at all.


Or, more accurately, the next one the media cares about because it fits their narrative de jour.  They happen on a daily basis, multiple times, in Chicago.

(08-28-2020, 02:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh this kid's life is probably just beginning.  The left is going to botch this and turn him into a hero, I tells ya. You have to wonder how many people are now going to go out and make a name for themselves doing the same thing, but I don't even know if a legitimate civil war would phase us at this point.

Quote:Again, I'm going overboard I'm sure, but American on American violence is downright scintillating at the moment.  The kid has pelts on the wall, and I'm thinking the fact that anyone else had a gun or fired it is practically irrelevant.  The enemy is us.  And our enemies don't even count as people.  We are very good at driving that point home.


EDIT - It's just fascinating seeing blood-thirty American jingoism applied to Americans.

(08-28-2020, 02:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you might be going a bit overboard here. 

(08-28-2020, 02:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Good because the most cynical part of me is already picturing people saying that what that kid did was "a good start" more so than self defense.

(08-28-2020, 03:43 PM)samhain Wrote: I was actually ready to enter this thread to defend or at least acknowledge that Rittenhouse may not have acted in a way that justifies his charges.  However, upon realizing that the alt-right apologists and racists will likely elevate him to the level of national hero, I opted not to.