Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#676
#676
Septic said:
Cops have no record of his phone call.

Kyle Rittenhouse: Self Defense? | YIP Institute

Here's Kyles problem...

"Kyle's self defense claim is not supported by Wisconsin law. In fact, Wisconsin is one of twenty-two U.S. states that does not have the “Stand your Ground” law. Even in the states where “Stand your Ground” is law, the right applies to self-defense inside one's home, vehicle, or business. In those states, one can generally use lethal force without having a duty to retreat. In any event, the self-defense argument would not have applied to Rittenhouse who had already overstepped his legal framework by using excessive retaliatory force. He was an active shooter who had not complied with Wisconsin State Law, and was posing an immediate threat. After killing Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had become an “active shooter” and all those who tried to neutralize or attack him were, therefore, legally justified in doing so. The laws sanction bystanders’ efforts at disarming or neutralizing an active shooter, especially since in so many violent instances--i.e. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut or in Parkland, Florida--attackers have inflicted great harm on innocent citizens."

In other words, what you see depends on where you sit - and the law is def not on his side.
Click to expand...
the call was from way before the shooting not the one during... the trial will be interesting...for sure......also a law student opinion essay doesn't hold much weight...but was interesting to read
 
#677
#677
USAFgolferVol said:
I don't think he should see one day in jail, but I do believe his alternative to jail should be enlisting in the Army or Marines. That's actually been used, with favorable results, to misguided teenagers who needed proper direction instead of incarceration
Click to expand...

NO! The military doesn't need people like him.

IMO the only crime he committed was breaking WI gun laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tntar heel and Rickyvol77
#678
#678
whodeycin85 said:
Im over 40. And for a 17 year old 5 months from 18, who is interested and being working and engaging with the local police to join them....would you rather him be going to a party getting drunk and doing drugs???? 5 months and its not an issue.
Click to expand...
Going to parties and getting drunk, using drugs, etc., isn't the only alternative to traveling to a riot with a gun. My God, some of you guys need to expand the binary thought processes going on in your heads
 
#679
#679
Septic said:
I never said he was guilty, but given the legal issues that face him and how the law works (see the post above) - I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
Click to expand...

Sure but that isn’t the important issue here. If he gets charged with violation of some gun law, whatever.

But the real question is were his actions in self defense? Given video evidence of him running from his attackers, it appears as if self defense should be the verdict
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#681
#681
hog88 said:
NO! The military doesn't need people like him.

IMO the only crime he committed was breaking WI gun laws.
Click to expand...

No stand your ground law in Whisky. The ole George Zimmerman defense is going to be a challenge.
 
#682
#682
USAFgolferVol said:
Going to parties and getting drunk, using drugs, etc., isn't the only alternative to traveling to a riot with a gun. My God, some of you guys need to expand the binary thought processes going on in your heads
Click to expand...
Well again he didn't travel with the gun....it was already there..so at least have correct info if your going to argue..and again he was 5 month from being 18..and being an ex police cadet..I would assume he was interested in protect others.
 
#684
#684
Septic said:
Cops have no record of his phone call.

Kyle Rittenhouse: Self Defense? | YIP Institute

Here's Kyles problem...

"Kyle's self defense claim is not supported by Wisconsin law. In fact, Wisconsin is one of twenty-two U.S. states that does not have the “Stand your Ground” law. Even in the states where “Stand your Ground” is law, the right applies to self-defense inside one's home, vehicle, or business. In those states, one can generally use lethal force without having a duty to retreat. In any event, the self-defense argument would not have applied to Rittenhouse who had already overstepped his legal framework by using excessive retaliatory force. He was an active shooter who had not complied with Wisconsin State Law, and was posing an immediate threat. After killing Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had become an “active shooter” and all those who tried to neutralize or attack him were, therefore, legally justified in doing so. The laws sanction bystanders’ efforts at disarming or neutralizing an active shooter, especially since in so many violent instances--i.e. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut or in Parkland, Florida--attackers have inflicted great harm on innocent citizens."

In other words, what you see depends on where you sit - and the law is def not on his side.
Click to expand...

Just a general observation but damned if the boldened isn't a hot mess to sort out in the moment. Imagine the most clear cut case of self-defense you can and then have a bunch of people, including maybe friends of the person that was shot pursuing the shooter who has not one jot of a guarantee that if subdued he wouldn't be maimed or killed.
 
#686
#686
hog88 said:
He was running away so he didn't try to stand his ground.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I thought he was on his ass when he started shooting.

Look, I'm not saying he's guilty of murder but I'm not saying he's innocent either - the only thing I'm certain of is him being a dumbass.
 
#687
#687
Septic said:
Maybe. I thought he was on his ass when he started shooting.

Look, I'm not saying he's guilty of murder but I'm not saying he's innocent either - the only thing I'm certain of is him being a dumbass.
Click to expand...

He was on his ass because he fail down while running. But there was also an incident before that where he was running
 
#688
#688
hog88 said:
They stopped giving the "jail or military" option long ago and for good reason.

Hell he tried to join the Marines and they wouldn't take him.
Click to expand...
I didn't know he had been rejected by the Marines. You're right that he shouldn't be anywhere near the military.

Proud Boys might take him, or some other right wing militia group
 
#689
#689
Vol8188 said:
He was on his ass because he fail down while running. But there was also an incident before that where he was running
Click to expand...

He fell down and was being hit with a skateboard . He was fleeing the whole time , he never stood his ground . Trapped after being chased once and fell or knocked down the second time .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#690
#690
The ones that deserve no sympathy and proved that natural selection works, are the idiots chasing somebody with an AK screaming what they are going to do to him when they catch him . 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#691
#691
Septic said:
Cops have no record of his phone call.

Kyle Rittenhouse: Self Defense? | YIP Institute

Here's Kyles problem...

"Kyle's self defense claim is not supported by Wisconsin law. In fact, Wisconsin is one of twenty-two U.S. states that does not have the “Stand your Ground” law. Even in the states where “Stand your Ground” is law, the right applies to self-defense inside one's home, vehicle, or business. In those states, one can generally use lethal force without having a duty to retreat. In any event, the self-defense argument would not have applied to Rittenhouse who had already overstepped his legal framework by using excessive retaliatory force. He was an active shooter who had not complied with Wisconsin State Law, and was posing an immediate threat. After killing Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had become an “active shooter” and all those who tried to neutralize or attack him were, therefore, legally justified in doing so. The laws sanction bystanders’ efforts at disarming or neutralizing an active shooter, especially since in so many violent instances--i.e. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut or in Parkland, Florida--attackers have inflicted great harm on innocent citizens."

In other words, what you see depends on where you sit - and the law is def not on his side.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true. He was not an active shooter and the two armed felons who weren’t legally carrying weapons and who attacked him are basically the same discussion
 
#696
#696
hog88 said:
He was running away so he didn't try to stand his ground.
Click to expand...
My recollection from when this happened is that Wisconsin self defense law is about as favorable to him as it could be. this was incorrect.

Tennessee has adopted rules that you can’t claim self defense if you are breaking the law, so he arguably couldn’t claim that, here, because of the unlawful possession charge. I remember not finding that in Wisconsin.

I can’t remember the specifics, but the way WI law drew a distinction between the two different events was also pretty favorable and it seemed like he had satisfied his duty by running away. it was the provocation issue. The facts seemed to be that the first killing was not a provocation for the second attack because he had retreated.

The feds may indict him if they can, like they did with Chauvin, but I don’t think the Wisconsin case is very strong especially if the judge is limiting them to the two specific altercations and not really getting into the stuff that makes him seem morally wrong. (As the judge should do).
 
Last edited:
#697
#697
Septic said:
It wasn't even his city.... or even his State.

He was looking for trouble and found it.

Truthfully, if your "city is burning" and your answer is to show up to a riot 'strapped' then you're a ******* moron. Let the police handle this...
Click to expand...
Awesome.
 
#698
#698
n_huffhines said:
Substitute "and killing" for "to kill" and then you won't miss the point of the post.

I think he knew he was going to shoot at somebody. That doesn't mean he's guilty of murder in a court of law, but I think he's a great fool if he thought he could go in there as an armed vigilante against a mob and not have to use his gun.
Click to expand...

If the kid went in with the intent of shooting someone, why did he literally run away from everyone who attacked him prior to shooting?

Seems to go against your narrative
 
#699
#699
Vol8188 said:
If the kid went in with the intent of shooting someone, why did he literally run away from everyone who attacked him prior to shooting?

Seems to go against your narrative
Click to expand...

Maybe he discovered in real time that he wasn't the tough guy he thought he was?
 
#700
#700
Septic said:
Maybe he discovered in real time that he wasn't the tough guy he thought he was?
Click to expand...

Maybe he was trying to get away from a bunch of crazy asses that didn’t have better sense than to threaten a guy with an AK . I don’t know how tough you gotta be to stand up to a mob of ignorant people , but I saw how composed he was when he needed to defend himself . You want to talk about scary people , composer under fire made him very dangerous for anyone trying to hurt him . I would tell to you just ask them , but they can’t answer you so .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top