Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

Ernest T. Vol

It's me...Ernest T.
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
7,169
Likes
10,839
The people he shot were intervening; hell the prosecutor described them as vigilantes trying to stop what they believed was an active shooter (who for some reason was running away and not shooting anyone but I digress).

The people he shot were not reacting to an imminent threat on their homes.
He can never apply the 'shoe on the other foot' test.
 

McDad

I can't brain today; I has the dumb.
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
42,829
Likes
72,988
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.
The jury disagrees.
 

825VOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
820
Likes
2,313
No, in this context the only thing that would justify his waking around armed would be an imminent threat on people in his home.

Once we start having people making their own judgments about when they are justified in intervening like this, well, just think about that door and how widely you really want it opened.
What do you think has been happening with these protests? People don’t know the facts or ignore them and take to the streets. They then proceed to burn down business, loot, smash property, and injure people. Maybe you should have a talk with those idiots first.
 

Weezer

VolNation Dalai Lama
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
57,475
Likes
126,289
I still don't understand people who have a problem with KR "being there" yet have no problem with the protesters "being there". Seems extremely hypocritical to pretend one side was somehow justified in being there, and one side was not. No one "needed" to be there. Both sides had the freedom to be there.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
16,811
Likes
27,441
51-49 is their level of certainty that Rittenhouse was at fault. They just have to believe Rittenhouse was most likely the person at fault.

But the issue is there’s zero evidence to support that
I know this is nit picky, but I think it’s an important distinction.

It’s not “who was most likely at fault”.
It is “who is more at fault”.

Not one or the other at fault, but who among the two is more at fault.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
2,602
Likes
3,236
No, in this context the only thing that would justify his waking around armed would be an imminent threat on people in his home.

Once we start having people making their own judgments about when they are justified in intervening like this, well, just think about that door and how widely you really want it opened.
We can’t protect the reasons we have a home?
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
33,851
Likes
23,298
I know this is nit picky, but I think it’s an important distinction.

It’s not “who was most likely at fault”.
It is “who is more at fault”.

Not one or the other at fault, but who among the two is more at fault.
I don’t actually believe that’s correct but even if so, what evidence is there that suggests any of the encounters were the fault of Rittenhouse?
 

VN Store




Top