I think the law still allows self defense if you are committing a crime, but I could be wrong on that.
Rittenhouse… likely not guilty.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I think the law still allows self defense if you are committing a crime, but I could be wrong on that.
Self defense usually is found not guilty!
Wait isn't it always the guns fault according to liberals, that gun should be put down! Unless Alec Baldwin needs another prop gun
When you create the situation that causes the threat, your response to it is judged differently. You must show you tried to retreat and were unable to.
Wait isn't it always the guns fault according to liberals, that gun should be put down! Unless Alec Baldwin needs another prop gun
Look at Wolverine. Unable to understand any complex issue that goes beyond his second grade intellect.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. OTOH, there are six key charges that can send young Kyle to prison and only two of them involve self-defense to kill a person.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Wait isn't it always the guns fault according to liberals, that gun should be put down! Unless Alec Baldwin needs another prop gun
Has everyone noticed that the Alt-Right Trump sheeple are conveying Baldwin but giving a pass to Kyle?
FWIW, yes, someone should go to jail for the killing of Halyna just as Kyle should go to jail for his actions in Kenosha.
That's why we have trials. Because self defense isn't automatically found not guilty.
But you wouldn't understand that because it is a complex issue that requires an ability to think about issues that a third grader could understand.
So u are admitting they are violent ..sane non-violent people accept a verdict and move on or OJ would be dead now.. I guess u would have supported some good o redneck non-judicial justice on OJ back in 1995
And thats why it was self defense and this kid needs a gun...they tried to kill him once but he was able to protect himself
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No doubt being nutty is a requirement to joint the white supremacist domestic terrorist group Boogaloo Boris and the Kenosha Guard. Some of those assholes will be going to jail for related charges.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1374624/kenosha-guard-militia-kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-protests-blm/
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_98b1e948-2b2f-50de-b789-1618f057606c.html
Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis announces retirement
Stringfellow Hawk
New member
Good, he will be able to rid society of a few more idiots and save our prisons thousands
Everyone thought James Fields would be acquitted for running over Heather Heyer with his car, a case with many, many similarities to this one...Fields' defense was that he felt threatened by the crowd, so that's why he drove into them.
Kyle also felt threatened by the crowd, which is why he fired into it before anyone tried to disarm him.
An active shooter does not have the right to self-defense.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
What are they?
Those pics show the disarming of an active shooter.
By that point, Kyle had already fired into the crowd.
Wouldn't you disarm an active shooter if there was one around you?
Or would you run away and hide because you're a gigantic pussy?
I think you'd run and hide because you're a gigantic pussy, which is why you were nowhere near DC on 1/6.
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
he was carrying a fucking assault weapon, bitch. he had just shot an unarmed guy to death from 10' away. people were yelling stop the killer, stop the punk ass bitch before he shoots somebody else, and when he fell down like the loser wimp he is, a brave guy tried to disarm the punk ass bitch and was killed.
Kind of hard to claim self defense for that one since he had already shot and killed someone. The people attacking him were the ones that could claim self defense since they were trying to stop an active shooter.
Active shooter?
Yup and it wasn't Kyle
Kenosha protester charged with firing gun right before Kyle Rittenhouse began shooting
Joshua Ziminski, 35, was charged last week with disorderly conduct-use of a dangerous weapon, a misdemeanor, in the Aug. 25 incident.
An hourlong analysis of different videos from that evening by Neil Kiernan, a Michigan-based blogger, posted Sept. 26, properly identified Ziminski and breaks down his presence near the gas station where Rittenhouse first fires his AR-15 rifle, killing Rosenbaum.
Ziminski and his wife are seen with Rosenbaum several times, including as they all confront Rittenhouse right before Rosenbaum starts chasing Rittenhouse into the car lot where their encounter turned fatal.
When Kenosha detectives interviewed Ziminski on Oct. 7, he said he had fired a "warning shot" and that gun he used, and is seen holding in various videos from that evening, has since been stolen.
According to the criminal complaint, videos show Ziminski pointing the gun up near the corner of 63rd St. and Sheridan Road, just a few yards from where Rosenbaum, 36, had chased Rittenhouse into an area of parked cars. As the shot is heard, Rittenhouse turns back toward Rosenbaum.
Witnesses say Rosenbaum then tried to grab the rifle from Rittenhouse, who then fired four times.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...iring-gun-prior-rittenhouse-shots/3667399001/
WHOOPS
SO KYLE HEARD A GUN SHOT AND THAN WAS ATTACKED
Yes, prior to those pictures, Kyle had fired his gun into the crowd.
He wasn't acting in self-defense of his life, he was acting in defense of his gun, which is what those guys were trying to disarm.
There were two separate incidences you're trying to conflate as one.
Kyle shot into the crowd before those guys tried to disarm him.
But it's good to know that you can't be relied upon to disarm an active shooter.
And they are arguing Rittenhouse could shoot an unarmed person in self defense because there was a mob but then demand that an officer be charged for shooting Ashli Babbet because she was 'unarmed' even though she was part of a violent insurrection.