Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

Sure. One of them is on video defending himself from attackers. The other was accused of rape and then came to the accusers house to harass her and got shot
So you’ll believe Blake is guilty based on an accusation, until… what, exactly? The state already admitted they can’t prove the sexual assault charge. It was dismissed.

Where’s the video proving Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the attacks he had to defend himself from? If you’re just assuming accusations are true, doesn’t he need to prove there was no provocation?
 
Last edited:
So you’ll believe Blake is guilty based on an accusation, until… what, exactly? The state already admitted they can’t prove the sexual assault charge. It was dismissed.

That’s not how that went at all. He entered a plea deal and plead guilty to a lesser charge of domestic assault.

All of those charges were from prior to the shooting. Yet he still showed up to harass her again the day she called the cops and he got shot
 
That’s not how that went at all. He entered a plea deal and plead guilty to a lesser charge of domestic assault.
On what planet is domestic assault legally equivalent to rape? The sexual assault charge was dismissed outright, it was not reduced.

Furthermore, where’s the video proving Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the attacks he had to defend himself from? If you’re just assuming accusations are true, doesn’t he need to prove there was no provocation?
 
On what planet is domestic assault legally equivalent to rape? The sexual assault charge was dismissed outright, it was not reduced.

Furthermore, where’s the video proving Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the attacks he had to defend himself from? If you’re just assuming accusations are true, doesn’t he need to prove there was no provocation?

Accusations for which he entered a plea deal? Why did he enter a plea deal if he were innocent?

And we are going to compare to a case of a kid running from his attackers?

So in your world showing up and harassing a woman who has accused you of rape is equal to running away from people who are attacking you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
Accusations for which he entered a plea deal? Why did he enter a plea deal if he were innocent?

And we are going to compare to a case of a kid running from his attackers?

So in your world showing up and harassing a woman who has accused you of rape is equal to running away from people who are attacking you?
Here we go with the strawmen… again.

We were not talking about me or my beliefs at all. Remember, you’re trying to justify your assumption that one is guilty and the other is not, based on accusations and incomplete evidence, even though the accusation you assume is true was dismissed.

I’m sure the prosecutors had a case of rape that they could prove and dismissed it because they could jam him up with *checks notes* probation. 😂😂😂

And I’m sure you’ve got the video that proves Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the assaults that he then defended himself from and the link will be forthcoming, shortly.
 
Here we go with the strawmen… again.

We were not talking about me or my beliefs at all. Remember, you’re trying to justify your assumption that one is guilty and the other is not, based on accusations and incomplete evidence, even though the accusation you assume is true was dismissed.

I’m sure the prosecutors had a case of rape that they could prove and dismissed it because they could jam him up with *checks notes* probation. 😂😂😂

And I’m sure you’ve got the video that proves Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the assaults that he then defended himself from and the link will be forthcoming, shortly.

1. Rape is hard to prove for obvious reasons. But he did accept a plea deal and he did come back and harass his accuser again on a second occasion, resulting in him getting shot.

2. Video of provocation not only doesn’t exist but is not needed. As soon as he runs away, he’s no longer a threat. If you chase him and attempt to harm him, he has a right to defend himself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
Here we go with the strawmen… again.

We were not talking about me or my beliefs at all. Remember, you’re trying to justify your assumption that one is guilty and the other is not, based on accusations and incomplete evidence, even though the accusation you assume is true was dismissed.

I’m sure the prosecutors had a case of rape that they could prove and dismissed it because they could jam him up with *checks notes* probation. 😂😂😂

And I’m sure you’ve got the video that proves Rittenhouse didn’t provoke the assaults that he then defended himself from and the link will be forthcoming, shortly.

I’m curious where the strawman was there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
1. Rape is hard to prove for obvious reasons.

2. Video of provocation not only doesn’t exist but is not needed. As soon as he runs away, he’s no longer a threat. If you chase him and attempt to harm him, he has a right to defend himself.

So you’re conceding that they couldn’t prove that he’s a rapist. Looking bad for reconciling the disparity between your assumptions.

The second point is, at best, an incomplete analysis under Wisconsin law. There are two positive acts required to regain the right of self-defense against a provoked attack, retreat is only one of them. Do you have proof of the other?

Furthermore, the regained right to self defense is incomplete, it comes with additional limitations. Do you have proof that Rittenhouse’s actions were within these limitations?
 
I’m curious where the strawman was there?
“So in your world showing up and harassing a woman who has accused you of rape is equal to running away from people who are attacking you?”

I never said that. I never even implied it and it is in no way a fair inference from a conversation where you are trying to reconcile the disparity between two of your conclusions and where I haven’t even stated any conclusions of my own except that your two conclusions cannot be reconciled in a way that maintains the consistency that you were demanding from others a few days ago.

1632412951735.png

It was an effort engage a weaker, more easily defeated argument than what I’ve actually said. Textbook strawman.
 
“So in your world showing up and harassing a woman who has accused you of rape is equal to running away from people who are attacking you?”

I never said that. I never even implied it and it is in no way a fair inference from a conversation where you are trying to reconcile the disparity between two of your conclusions and where I haven’t even stated any conclusions of my own except that your two conclusions cannot be reconciled in a way that maintains the consistency that you were demanding from others a few days ago.

View attachment 396640

It was an effort engage a weaker, more easily defeated argument than what I’ve actually said. Textbook strawman.

So more circles? Got it.
 
So you’re conceding that they couldn’t prove that he’s a rapist. Looking bad for reconciling the disparity between your assumptions.

The second point is, at best, an incomplete analysis under Wisconsin law. There are two positive acts required to regain the right of self-defense against a provoked attack, retreat is only one of them. Do you have proof of the other?

Furthermore, the regained right to self defense is incomplete, it comes with additional limitations. Do you have proof that Rittenhouse’s actions were within these limitations?

You mean a reasonable belief that they intended you bodily harm? Let’s be clear on who you don’t believe intended to harm him? Or do you just enjoy wasting time for the sake of it? The fact that you don’t even state the limitations or other barriers seems to imply you just enjoy wasting time
 
You mean a reasonable belief that they intended you bodily harm? Let’s be clear on who you don’t believe intended to harm him? Or do you just enjoy wasting time for the sake of it? The fact that you don’t even state the limitations or other barriers seems to imply you just enjoy wasting time
No. The reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm is a predicate to any claim of self-defense.

If that threat of harm is a response to provocation, the provocateur has a very narrow privilege of self-defense: “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 [1]exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid [2] death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.” (I added the enumeration of elements)

In order to regain the full privilege, the provocateur must [1]withdraw and [2]give notice of his intent to withdraw. My recollection is that under WI case law, it’s not so simple as merely running away, particularly when the altercation involves firearms and the provocateur does not give up their firearm.

There’s also part (c) of the provocation sub-section: “A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.” Calling this last part a limit on the regained right was inarticulate. It’s probably more aptly described as a limitation of the circumstances in which the privilege can be regained.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

The bottom line is that it’s not been proven that Rittenhouse acted within the self-defense privilege defined by the Wisconsin legislature, particularly when the prosecution claims to have evidence that he provoked Rosenbaum. So, you’re still left with being unable to reconcile your disparate conclusions between a dropped but not disproven allegation and a maintained but not disproven allegation.

It’s also clear that you didn’t bother to learn Wisconsin self-defense law before drawing these conclusions, and as I explained the other day, it’s on you to inform your opinions before becoming wed to them, it’s not on me to inform you once you’ve demonstrated an irrational attachment to an opinion. So, it certainly doesn’t seem like a waste of time to have left that information out.
 
You never stated you’d shoot someone if you caught them stealing?

Edit: especially when you were 18?

I have joked about shooting a burglar in the ass and wise people told me that if I end up shooting a burglar, this could be used against me.

I definitely never joked about shooting shoplifters. I mean, kids I knew and liked at my school were shoplifters. If you told me KR had shoplifted in the past it wouldn't surprise me one bit. The punishment he mentioned does not fit the crime. You can say it was a joke and I would say fine if it ended there, but he literally went with said AR and put himself in a position to shoot looters. You can't judge the words without the follow-up action. If I had gone looking for burglars 2 weeks later to shoot and did it, I would say the evidence of intent was infinitely stronger.
 
I have joked about shooting a burglar in the ass and wise people told me that if I end up shooting a burglar, this could be used against me.

I definitely never joked about shooting shoplifters. I mean, kids I knew and liked at my school were shoplifters. If you told me KR had shoplifted in the past it wouldn't surprise me one bit. The punishment he mentioned does not fit the crime. You can say it was a joke and I would say fine if it ended there, but he literally went with said AR and put himself in a position to shoot looters. You can't judge the words without the follow-up action. If I had gone looking for burglars 2 weeks later to shoot and did it, I would say the evidence of intent was infinitely stronger.

Yet there’s zero evidence of him shooting looters. Only people who attacked him.
 
No. The reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm is a predicate to any claim of self-defense.

If that threat of harm is a response to provocation, the provocateur has a very narrow privilege of self-defense: “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 [1]exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid [2] death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.” (I added the enumeration of elements)

In order to regain the full privilege, the provocateur must [1]withdraw and [2]give notice of his intent to withdraw. My recollection is that under WI case law, it’s not so simple as merely running away, particularly when the altercation involves firearms and the provocateur does not give up their firearm.

There’s also part (c) of the provocation sub-section: “A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.” Calling this last part a limit on the regained right was inarticulate. It’s probably more aptly described as a limitation of the circumstances in which the privilege can be regained.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

The bottom line is that it’s not been proven that Rittenhouse acted within the self-defense privilege defined by the Wisconsin legislature, particularly when the prosecution claims to have evidence that he provoked Rosenbaum. So, you’re still left with being unable to reconcile your disparate conclusions between a dropped but not disproven allegation and a maintained but not disproven allegation.

It’s also clear that you didn’t bother to learn Wisconsin self-defense law before drawing these conclusions, and as I explained the other day, it’s on you to inform your opinions before becoming wed to them, it’s not on me to inform you once you’ve demonstrated an irrational attachment to an opinion. So, it certainly doesn’t seem like a waste of time to have left that information out.

You wasted a lot of time to say you don’t have any evidence of provocation and then claim I don’t know the law because he can’t claim self defense if he provoked someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
You wasted a lot of time to say you don’t have any evidence of provocation and then claim I don’t know the law because he can’t claim self defense if he provoked someone.
I don’t need evidence. It’s been alleged. That’s enough for you, apparently. Or is that only in some cases? Reconcile why it’s not enough here, please.
 
Bro, I wish I had my ****ing AR,” Rittenhouse says. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
That is disturbing, definitely makes me change the way I look at him. I mildly dislike him now, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what he did technically was still self defense, the fact that he attempted to retreat solidifies that IMO. They need to hit him good on the weapons charge, but it’s still not murder or manslaughter.
 

VN Store



Back
Top