He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

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,

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.

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.

@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.
"

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."

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

Hat had to kill those 23 babies. Everyone knows that when a bunch of babies get together like that, they’re like piranhas.

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.

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.

Lets see,
This guy got shot when he pointed his gut at Rit

1 guy got shot after hitting him with skateboard and tried to pull the guy away
The other guy said to Rit and his fried that he was going to kill them earlier. When he had the opportunity he chased Rit down and Rit defended himself.

Nice, way to not answer the question, as usual. Instead you pretend Rosenbalm followed and menaced Rittenhouse, even though every shred of evidence including the location of the shooting and statement from Rittenhouse say the opposite. It’s ok, we know you think it’s ok to hunt certain groups of people. You don’t have to say it publicly.

Rittenhouse first chased/followed him for blocks from the parking lot he “guarded”, armed, brandishing his weapon and pointing it at Rosenbaum. When Rosenbaum stopped retreating, Rittenhouse shot him in the head.

In his testimony, McGinniss said that as Rosenbaum lunged, Rittenhouse “kind of dodged around” with his weapon and then leveled the gun and fired.

Binger repeatedly tried to get McGinniss to say Rosenbaum was not “lunging” but “falling” when he was shot, as McGinniss said in a media interview days after the shooting,
McGinniss said: “He was lunging, falling. I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon.”
So, his unbiased testimony is the unarmed victim was lunging for the weapon after being shot in the head….not falling….or they’re the same thing.

"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.

I wonder how Karl knew he was going to need a gun?

Bob,

It doesn't matter what happened after Baby Rambo intentionally put himself in harm's way during the commission of an illegal act. This would be like me breaking into your house and getting caught in the act of stealing your stuff. You pull a gun and take a shot at me, miss, then I shoot you in the head and claim it was self defense. That's exactly how the prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back three days later.

Exactly

Let's say someone lunges towards you and you don't have a gun; HOW ARE YOU GONNA SHOOT EM?

Moving this video to bobknight33's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

If someone got my gun from me and shot me with it, I would be so embarrassed.

He was put into harms way the the thugs.

You just upset because he defended himself.

Guess you wanted him to be beaten to a pulp.

No, he put himself in harms way by crossing state lines and playing cop and being violently aggressive and threatening towards the “thug”, following him, threatening him, brandishing rifles and pointing them at him…”thugs” an odd thing to call them since he was definitely being intentionally thuggish himself. He went there to play dirty cop with a rifle.

I’m upset because he travelled with weapons he couldn’t legally have in order to intentionally hunt the unarmed person he then murdered (or some other person, I don’t think it was personal), and is claiming he’s the victim.

No, I think all people with functioning brains want him to have never gone to another state to play thuggish untrained cop looking for targets to exercise his non existent authority over with illegal deadly weapons he’s not trained to properly use, because someone getting shot unnecessarily is an easily foreseeable consequence of doing that.

Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

And yeah, if it's a choice between someone getting beat up and someone getting fucking killed, must be the Buddhist in me but I'd rather the former.

Speaking of not letting people die. Tell more of your flunky Rs to get vaccinated. And tell me what all these Hermann Cain awards have in common https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Almost like all of them are getting a steady stream of misinformation.

Sounds like just over a week earlier he went without his gun, and told people he was upset he didn’t have it to shoot them with. Next trip he brought it and shot 3. That’s not self defense, it’s a planned human hunt.

No one threatened to beat him before he pointed his gun at them.
No one threatened to beat him in his home state that he left, illegally armed and looking for trouble.
He says the unarmed guy he shot in the head threatened to beat him up if he caught him alone, so clearly being scared of that threat and taking it seriously, he left his friends and followed his victim for blocks, alone, I can only guess hoping to get beaten up….or hunting the guy who disrespected him. You choose, either way, shooting was a choice based on a situation he intentionally put himself in. That’s murder 1.

Just to be clear, when armed groups of BLM activists come to your town to protect black owned businesses from the bi-yearly neo Nazi / Klan meet up, follows a vitriolic racist they think they stopped from attacking a business by threatening them with death, and along the way threatens them a few more times, if the unarmed assumed klan member turns around and approaches the BLM activists in anger, it's fine to shoot the racist scumbag in the head, and that goes for any and all that try to stop them afterwards. Idiotic, but I'll send the message to the "gonna fuck shit up" wing (the left wing 3%) and get them moving to NC right away....fully armed and looking for trouble they can stop with a bullet. Better keep your mouth shut around town from now on or someone might feel threatened and have to defend themselves.

Funny, I recall last year you screamed that armed gangs of black thugs were coming to towns across America to shoot whomever they pleased....turned out it was white right wing thugs that did exactly that, repeatedly, so now you're fully in favor of it and prepared to defend them with gusto. Hmmmm. No, you aren't racist though.