I only watched the court proceedings. Like I said, I hope he's in your neighborhood not mine @bobknight33 I don't want to get Rittenhoused, which is apparently legal.

I'm surprised he didn't feel like he would lose his life if the court took it. But just like that poor kid who got boxed in by a truck, he was running, so...

I am, assuming anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that's what actually happened. I also assume if someone could, they would have so stated already. Every judge in the country, many trump appointees (not that that should matter) that has seen cases like that has found them wanting.

They're probably taking a long time to deliver verdict because this is a open shut case where the boy is very clearly innocent.


Pffft lol

That's not what happened according to Rottenhouse on the stand. According to him, he was a threat when his hands were up, which is when he decided to fire.

Not to mention, in an open carry state, it seems incumbent on the public to accept that someone running towards you with and open carry weapon is not a threat the same way it would be in a concealed carry state.

He's not "running at me with a gun" he's "running at me" since he's got the right to do that with or without a gun in Wisconsin. If what you said was true, anyone running in my direction with a gun is a deadly and -this is important- imminent, threat.

https://youtu.be/JG8PhtFrO0Y?t=9972

Did you know that NOT aiming a gun at someone could be more threatening than aiming a gun at someone? News to me.

He also has an odd definition of "lowering"

And if he's aiming his gun first, while not being aimed at... and "lowering"his gun by moving it away from the earth and towards the sky, and fires, and the man still isn't aiming a gun at him...

I hope you don't run into this kid and not aim a gun at him. That could make him feel like you're going to kill him.

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.

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.

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

Exactly

"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.

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

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.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/11/04/texas-real-estate-jenna-ryan-prison-january-6-capitol-riot/

Excuse me, I meant to say put people in prison. More traitors to lock up, no time to chat.

LET ME KNOW WHEN BIDEN TAKES AWAY YOUR GUNS

Let me put it this way, M Y truth, aka the FACTS that happened, puts people in jail


LET ME KNOW WHEN HILLARY IS BEHIND BARS