"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

So, Bob. What about the victim’s right to defend themself from an armed aggressor who had followed them for blocks and was confronting him with weapon cocked and at the ready? He should have shot Rittenhouse in the head when he allegedly pointed, but didn’t shoot his gun, right? That would have solved everything, no charges to be brought, no lawsuit for pedonazi’s parents, no harm, no foul, right? Pure self defense, not even a need to report it, right?

Rittenhouse hunted him for blocks. Chasing him down with an assault rifle as the victim retreated. Then murdered him when he stopped running away. Just want it on the record, you think that’s fine, as is shooting anyone who tries to stop you from leaving the scene of a murder you just committed. Go on. Say it. It’s fine to hunt and kill people you don’t like.
Now…is it fine if the shooter is black and the victim is a baby faced white Republican boy? Pretty sure I know the real answer already.

Trumpist crowds are dangerous and criminal. If they need to get shot up by liberals who get scared by their aggressiveness….. self defense! Aim for the head, guys, and claim you tried a non deadly area to shoot. There’s nothing up there to hurt.

Seems cut and dry to me. He had every opportunity to escape calmly and unharmed without using deadly force, or even to use force but at least attempt to not kill. He chose instead to shoot the guy in the head at point blank range.


Then there’s the second and third killings. Certainly you can’t use self defense to excuse murdering citizens to effect an escape from a previous murder you just committed. Again, if so, it’s open season on people, even on cops. They’re all armed and trigger happy, and certain to use deadly force against force if given the chance. Not a precedent I think they want to set, but absolutely what their defense leads to.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
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.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

Bob,

"as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night."

This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Absolutely not, IMO.
It’s not self defense if you hunt your victim, he did.
It’s not self defense if the people you shoot were not armed. You can’t use a gun in defense from a fist. He did.

It’s not self defense if you hear a pop (no shot was fired AT Rittenhouse, if the defense is to be believed, someone else shot into the air to get the gun toting aggressor to leave and stop threatening everyone with death). Rittenhouse had no idea if he heard a gun, firecracker, or plastic bag being popped.

It’s not self defense if you murder people trying to escape from the first murder you committed in public, the second and third victims were preforming legal citizens arrests on an armed, aggressive murderer attempting to flee the scene of his crimes.

What he did is 100% not self defense, if that idiotic defense works, it’s open season. All anyone has to do is say they had to shoot up that preschool, those kids were coming right for them….SHOOT EM NED!!

Hypothetical scenario….I had to shoot your family….I broke into your house because I thought you might do drugs in there, and I’m, on my own accord, protecting your town from drug users even though I have no authority, and when you yelled at me in your bedroom doorway and threw a clock it was scary, so I shot your wife and shot you in the dick and chest, then your kids came out screaming at me and one threw a doll, so I shot them too, then left without reporting any of it, and fled the state immediately. Self defense. Almost exactly the same thing.

If a jury accepts self defense in these circumstances, they are not impartial.
If a jury accepts a self defense claim, the next Trump rally is going to be a blood bath, and the attackers will claim self defense.
If a jury accepts a self defense claim, it will send a clear message that hunting humans for pleasure will be legal in the US, because that’s exactly what he did.

I know for a fact -- through painful personal experience -- that at least in California, you can't go "looking for trouble". If this law extends to other states, the "self defense" argument is like arguing Kosher ham.

I can tell the story of how I know about the California law, otherwise I'll stop Face Booking here.

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

Congratulations! Your video, Man Who Shot At Police In Self Defense Is Acquitted, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Man Who Shot At Police In Self Defense Is Acquitted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

...or stand your ground/self defense.

So, in your mind, consensual sex is a shameful crime like robbing a bank? So bad you would kill to hide evidence of it? Your poor poor wife.
And you think having an abortion is to restore perceived virginity!?
And you think that's the only reason anyone has one!?! Reputation!?!?

Just wow. I used to think I was insulting you by saying your IQ was <80...now I see that was a compliment.

No, it's a medical, legal, and religious fact. One you disagree with, but accepted worldwide by governments and populations.

Doesn't the bible say murder is ok? Yes, yes it does. I do think there are many instances when murder is ok, like self defense. That is a widely accepted position too.

You fuck right off out of the U.S.....they legalized abortions first. If fucking right off is your rule, you go first, you were pissed at a political loss first.....then there's no abortion issue, outlaw it in your banana republic. Was it that hard? Fuck off moron.

Yeah, I have fucked right off out of Texas (born and raised there, btw), and I took my moderate estate with me...my parents did too. Texas's loss, they need people with money and property, and educations. They have just ostracized a majority of them. Enjoy bankruptcy, and prepare for most states and countries to stop doing business with Texas. Isolation didn't work for Texas the first time, it's not likely to work now.

I'll never understand why, when someone cuts off another driver like this and gets out of their car to threaten or attack the other driver, why doesn't the person being attacked just run the attacker down in self defense? I would have parked on top of this guy or pinned him against his door with my bumper and waited for the police.

You know how much damage my Bronco would suffer if I just let it roll over him? None at all.

600000 dead thanks to pretending it’s a mild flu and ignoring it for months = “fake COVID fear”
4 dead in a hostile country = “spend as long as it takes to force Clinton to pay”

No punishment, just exclusion from society and commerce in self defense. When you morons start spreading the next variant that mutated in one of your obese bodies and we go back to full quarantine, I’ll be totally open to either get the shot or get shot….you’ll be murdering people in the name of ignorant obstinance.
What happened to “grandma is fine dying if you can go back to work”…now turned into “I’m not getting a shot so we can go back to work because no one pwomised me a wowweepop and I’m afwaid of getting owchied.”

Go door to door, any house with an unvaccinated occupant should get sealed and the names published, and breaking quarantine should be the death penalty anyone can inflict just like you idiots said the elderly would accept.
Definitely anyone unvaccinated should pay every dime of treatment at this point, right? You claim to be about personal responsibility, so lobby your representatives to give insurance companies and the fed the right to not pay for COVID treatment for unvaccinated people. 90% of you morons would try to get one today if that was the case.

Public health is not a personal choice as long as you live in a society. Leave society, then you can live in personal freedom on quarantine island.