10-28-2021, 08:19 PM
(10-28-2021, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought the importance of crossing state lines had to do with laws differing between the states regarding whoever illegally supplied him with the firearm.
Yes, that was the initial reason for it being brought up. Even then crossing state lines is only an issue if you do so in furtherance of a crime. If the crime involves different laws in different jurisdictions, which btw could also take place within the same state, then the crossing state lines is only relevant in that regard. At this point it's a talking point for people who dislike Rittenhouse and want him convicted.
Quote:With regards to using the term victim vs rioter, definitely an issue there. Both carry big emotional connotations. Were both rioters?
You're missing a key point here. The bench officer stated they could only label the deceased as rioters if the provide evidence they were involved in riotous activity and not before. So, it's a much more fair ruling that being portrayed by some.
Quote:The first guy killed chased him with a plastic bag with maybe a beverage bottle in it. Scared for his life? I don't know. I find it to be a tough argument to suggest that he needed to turn around and shoot him point blank because of that.
You're again missing a key piece of evidence here, quite honestly the most key piece of them all. One of the other people chasing Rittenhouse also fired a hand gun, as I mention in my second post in this thread. Seeing as how Rittenhouse had his back to the mob chasing him he would obviously be unaware of who fired the shot or that it was fired in the air. Secondly, Rosenbaum then, by all accounts, physically assaulted Rittenhouse and attempted to rob him of his firearm. At that point his throwing a plastic bag, even if Rittenhouse knew that was all he had previously done, is no longer relevant. If a member of an angry mob physically attacks me and attempts to take my firearm I'm going to logically conclude that my life is in danger if they succeed and act accordingly.
Quote:The second guy reacted to someone saying that this armed man just killed someone and then tried to apprehend him. Someone may respond "he had a gun too", but he also didn't use it. Funny how if he had shot first, he'd be the one arguing self defense because an armed person had just killed someone and then pointed a rifle at him as he tried to disarm him.
That wasn't the second guy, that was the third. The second guy is the one who chose to strike Rittenhouse with a skateboard (deadly weapon) while Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene. (I do find it odd how all these people who hate the police want to be amateur cops) The third guy is the one who approached brandishing a hand gun and was initially aggressive, then feigned surrender before again assuming an aggressive posture and being shot.
Quote:I've made my position clear. He chose to illegally arm himself and travel to a place with what appears to be the intent to engage somehow with the other side. He chose to kill a man who was chasing him with a bag and maybe a bottle after the guy had thrown the bag and kept running towards him. I just don't see the justification of lethal force. Since I view that as murder, I then don't see an argument for self defense when people tried to subdue him for killing a man.
Respectfully, your account of this incident is riddled with inaccuracies and omits extremely important details. Again respectfully, this appears to be a trend of those condemning Rittenhouse in this thread. I did a point by point breakdown of this incident in my second post, which no detractor has attempted to address or refute.
I will end with this. The misinformation leading some to condemn Rittenhouse is exactly why I think he should go with a bench trial. All it takes is one person who ignores the actual evidence and condemn this kid for reasons not relevant to the claim of self defense to cause a mistrial. With a bench trial his acquittal is a near certainty.
