That doesn’t mean he lost his right to defend himself and prevent his weapon from being taken by random people. A convicted felon doesn’t have the legal right to possess a firearm; but if someone breaks into his house and starts shooting, felon grabs his unlawfully-possessed firearm and stops the threat…felon didn’t break the law when it came to defending himself.
3 Likes
It’d be relevant if he had that rifle legally (at least in regards to open carry).
Also, anyone who open carrys a a kitted out AR around a suburban/urban area can get fucked. No useful member of society does that.tge people I trust with guns have CCLs and you’d never know.
After Rittenhouse shot and killed the first person, or second person, would a protestor in the area being fired upon, with a CCL been justified in firing on Rittenhouse to stop an active shooter? Seems like it’s the same “feared for my life” argument.
Or does Rittenhouse get to continue shooting anyone who trys to stop him shooting until police try and stop him?
I am not a mind reader, but all of the evidence suggests that yes, that is indeed why he showed up. I’m not saying that he should have done what he did; as I’ve said before, the boy should have been at home that night. But it’s quite conceivable that even though his decision to go to Kenosha was foolish, his intentions were decent. Unfortunately, I think we will see more of this as police increasingly can’t or won’t stop rioting or looting, especially in smaller cities where there is much less tolerance for it than there is in places like Minneapolis or Portland or Seattle.
1 Like
So he dressed in the uniform of what the people he claims to want to help see as tge “enemy”, gathered with a group of “the enemy”, carried a garish attention grabbing assault rifle openly, all to offer aid to rioters/protestors? Who his internet history says he dislikes?
Nah. He would not have worn boots, muted green and carried a rifle. He would have worn black, carried a concealed handgun, worn a mask and carried a backpack of medical supplies.
A number of problems here. First, no evidence was adduced at trial that Rittenhouse fired shots into the air. Second, though it appears that Rittenhouse did violate Wisconsin law by carrying a firearm in public and being under 18, it is a misdemeanor, and there is no evidence that he threatened Rosenbaum with it. Finally, the “unarmed man,” Rosenbaum, had threatened to kill Rittenhouse, then chased him, then tried to grab his gun.
1 Like
What are we arguing about here? If you’re talking about the legal angle, he was in a place he had a right to be, which is what is relevant in the law of self-defense. If you are talking about the moral angle, it’s a bit more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. After all, the people he shot could also have just not gone there as well. Do you attribute their presence to some moral failure?
I think he was violating curfew, but the judge dismissed that charge, or disallowed that to be used at trial (correct me if I’m wrong).
Doogie, thanks for the link to the Milwaukee Journal article. Very informative. I had heard people argue that the weapon possession charge was not clear-cut, but I did not understand why. This post explains it.
This has nothing to do with whether a shooting is justified. If you do own a firearm, you should look into taking some classes.
2 Likes
After? No. He was not an active shooter, and he didn’t brandish the weapon after shooting.
While he was shooting? Possibly, if someone materialized in the second he was shooting with no knowledge of the reason he was shooting.
1 Like
The evidence suggest he was not an active shooter. He was threatened to be killed, then chases by the same person. Authopay suggest the first dead person was grabbing Rittenhouses gun when shot. This is not active shooter. This is a man who defended himself. He then goes to check on the victim of the shooting. Sees the victim is taken care of. Calls a friend to inform he just shot someone. Which suggests he is not an active shooter. You should stop framing that. It is wrong.
Second of all. The mob is not the police. The guy clearly runs for his life and towards police to surrender. The mob, all criminals attack him, trying to kill him. Of course he shoots them down.
2 Likes
Here’s Rosenbaum prior to his loss.
I am amazed that people are trying to frame Rittenhouse for being there. No one should have been in Kenosha that night period. If your point of morality and legality is the presense of Rittenhouse, then you should be for the arrest of every single person in Kenosha that night. Every single one should be now on trial.
2 Likes
I knew it wouldn’t be long before we got another Chau-trail at the woke mob’s behest, and here we are with this media-fueled, state-sponsored legal farce.
The silver lining is that it continues to expose the national news media as propagandists, not journalists. It also continues to expose the broader woke movement in the USA as a house of cards built on emotional storytelling that cannot stand up to even basic levels of scrutiny.
This reminds me of Covington Catholic, where a media narrative took off and spread like wildfire. Meanwhile, the entire thing was on video for anyone to view, causing the narrative to crumble in front of any reasonable person. Yet people remain so desperate for the narrative to be true that they start employing woke mental gymnastics to explain why the white teenage male was still somehow a symbol of white supremacy, despite no white supremacist words or deeds.
As rioters organize riots in places with more armed Americans there will be more armed confrontations. This trial is of immense social importance to affirm our fundamental right to defend yourself. The woke would, of course, prefer that you not offer any resistance whatsoever when the woke mob shows up to your neighborhood.
Too bad. Human beings have a right to defend themselves.
10 Likes
No reasonable person believed it in the first place.
3 Likes
I think a lot probably did, because a lot of reasonable people don’t spend much time or effort on understanding current events or politics to any meaningful depth. Fact-free media narratives wouldn’t exist if not for their effectiveness on people with good intentions who are informed by fact-free media narratives.
1 Like
I’d say that makes them unreasonable. I agree that many likely have good intentions.
I have no problem with someone focusing on child-rearing, family care, career development, or any other chosen pursuit over staying informed about current events and politics. I don’t think such behavior is unreasonable at all.
Those are exactly the type of people who will, in fact, show up to vote if what you do starts fucking with their livelihood, deep personal belief or interest, and especially their family.
These might be some of the most reasonable people we have.
2 Likes
If they blindly buy media narratives, they are unreasonable. They very well may have good intentions. The road to Hell is paved…
Edit: I will add that I believe it would be entirely reasonable to have no idea what the Covington Catholic issue was, or to see it as meaningless. The unreasonable part would be buying whatever someone else told you.