08-28-2020, 11:51 AM
(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.
You right wing extremist you.
(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.
What about this kid makes him a "right wing extremist? That he supports law enforcement? You've labeled this kid from the beginning as some kind of wayward, misguided soul. Why is that? Yeah, the law is the law, and it doesn't look like he broke it when defending himself from a mob. He did carry his rifle illegally though.
(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.
You're fixating on a legal irrelevancy. First Rosenbaum was attacking him. Secondly, Rittenhouse heard someone fire a gun behind him. Third, Rosenbaum was not alone, he was part of a large mob pursuing this kid. An "unarmed man can still beat the shit out of you and take your weapon, especially when he's got numerous people to back him up. Rittenhouse had a very legitimate reason to fear for his life.
(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.
Absolutely.
(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.
What does "goad" mean? What are your parameters here?
