Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

The point is that there is a difference between shooting some and stopping a threat and going on to kill them after there is no threat.
self defense can turn into murder.
Like 2 people are fighting and the victim knocks out the aggressor and then the victim kills him.
self defense turns into murder or at least manslaughter.

Happened to a client of my moms.

”I can explain the first five stab wounds - I can’t explain the next twenty.”

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

Also true! Strikeout never answered at what point the other people were acting in self defense.

AGAIN - THIS IS WHY I DONT WANT KIDS ROAMING STREETS WITH GUNS

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:47:00 PM (view original):
The Grosskreutz situation proves my point. He wasn’t just out randomly shooting. He only shot when he felt his life was in danger. He didn’t shoot Grosskreutz until he pointed a gun at him. He didn’t shoot him when his hands were up. Grosskreutz admitted this and a meme was forever made of the prosecutor burying his face in his hand. and he stopped shooting when he felt the threat had been neutralized. If this weren’t the case, Grosskreutz would be dead.

Maybe yes but at that point if the first shooting was an unlawful killing and then he killed a second person moments later Why wouldn’t someone point a gun at an active shooter. Guns are supposed to be for self defense at appropriate times.

If someone has not seen the carnage of the third guy picture a meaty arm that has lost 80% of the flesh about 3 inches above the elbow. An intact arm with almost nothing just above the elbow.
And Rosenbaum took 3 of those shots before the execution shot.

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

There was a curfew, he actually shouldn’t have been there and most reasonable people weren’t.

Nobody else had a visible gun, except his friends, who had fallen back.

He said he was there to put out fires but he put down the fire extinguisher, Id say that’s relevant.

”No reasonable person could know he was unarmed” and any reasonable person could see who was armed.

“Was being attacked” is good justification for shooting someone to you, ok then. Again, I’d like my daughters to grow up in a country without armed kids shooting anyone they “feel threatened by.” I like law and order.

I never said his actions were okay. People do things all the time that I disagree with. My argument is strictly legal. It sounds like your issues are with the laws on the book. Arguing whether Rittenhouse should be found guilty or not guilty is a different argument than arguing that the laws should be changed.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

I know a good way to not take 4 bullets. Don’t chase after and try to attack someone with a gun.

I mean….I know a good way not to shoot someone with 4 bullets….

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:47:00 PM (view original):
The Grosskreutz situation proves my point. He wasn’t just out randomly shooting. He only shot when he felt his life was in danger. He didn’t shoot Grosskreutz until he pointed a gun at him. He didn’t shoot him when his hands were up. Grosskreutz admitted this and a meme was forever made of the prosecutor burying his face in his hand. and he stopped shooting when he felt the threat had been neutralized. If this weren’t the case, Grosskreutz would be dead.

Maybe yes but at that point if the first shooting was an unlawful killing and then he killed a second person moments later Why wouldn’t someone point a gun at an active shooter. Guns are supposed to be for self defense at appropriate times.

If someone has not seen the carnage of the third guy picture a meaty arm that has lost 80% of the flesh about 3 inches above the elbow. An intact arm with almost nothing just above the elbow.
And Rosenbaum took 3 of those shots before the execution shot.

Has he answered at what point the other people can act in self defense yet?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

I know a good way to not take 4 bullets. Don’t chase after and try to attack someone with a gun.

Yeah but that is not the law in that state for use of deadly force and we are talking about the law and not Dirty Harry.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

There was a curfew, he actually shouldn’t have been there and most reasonable people weren’t.

Nobody else had a visible gun, except his friends, who had fallen back.

He said he was there to put out fires but he put down the fire extinguisher, Id say that’s relevant.

”No reasonable person could know he was unarmed” and any reasonable person could see who was armed.

“Was being attacked” is good justification for shooting someone to you, ok then. Again, I’d like my daughters to grow up in a country without armed kids shooting anyone they “feel threatened by.” I like law and order.

I never said his actions were okay. People do things all the time that I disagree with. My argument is strictly legal. It sounds like your issues are with the laws on the book. Arguing whether Rittenhouse should be found guilty or not guilty is a different argument than arguing that the laws should be changed.

no, my argument is legal too.

You just said “he was being attacked that’s good justification for shooting.” I disagree with pretty much all of that, especially the “justification for shooting.”

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

I know a good way to not take 4 bullets. Don’t chase after and try to attack someone with a gun.

Yeah but that is not the law in that state for use of deadly force and we are talking about the law and not Dirty Harry.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

Also true! Strikeout never answered at what point the other people were acting in self defense.

AGAIN - THIS IS WHY I DONT WANT KIDS ROAMING STREETS WITH GUNS

Sorry. A lot to work through here. I miss stuff at times.

I’m not sure I have an answer. He was clearly not an “active shooter” in the traditional sense. He only shot at people that attacked him. What I gather that you’re asking is if they were justified in attacking him. I have no idea. I’m not sure it matters. From what I gather all that matters in the verdict was Rittenhouse’s mindset.

He most definitely was an active shooter in the traditional sense.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Rosenbaum - Rittenhouse stood tall and lined up like he was on a firing squad and shot him in the pelvis. Rosenbaum is down for the count. Threat over.
Then - he shoots him in shoulder. Still down - threat still over. Now he has no legs to walk and only one strong arm.
Then he shoots him in hand because it was moving ( thing). Still down - no threat and no legs and only one hand left.
Then he shoots him through the lumbar spinal cord and now he is dead.

And everything went down hill from there.

Well, that’s not how it happened it all. Lol. He shot 4 shots rapidly and they happened to enter the 4 places that you mentioned.

The way you wrote that is that he shot the guy in the leg. Let him hobble around for a minute. Then shot him in the shoulder. Waited and watched his arm dangle for a second. And then he shoots him in the hand (by the way, there’s testimony that he got shot in the hand because he was reaching for the gun: see Dr. Kelly’s testimony and Richie McGuinness’s testimony) and then once he was collapsed on the ground, he shot him in the back.

No. I did not imply how fast were the shots.
The rapidity is in no way a mitigating factor in his failure to stop using deadly force after a threat was ended. Remember - to use deadly force you must at that time be in reasonable fear of death or imminent great bodily harm.
After the first shot and the guy is down he just kept shooting anyway.
It is on the shooter to operate the the weapon correctly. He did use deadly force 3 uneccessary shots including an execution shot while there was ZERO evidence of any type of threat.

Imaginary threats don’t count when you use deadly force. If you use deadly force you MUST be right.

The guy wasn’t down after 1st shot. The 3rd shot was into the guys hand they believe. He wasn’t even “down” during the 4th shot. Per two witnesses, the shot in his back happened because he was lunging forward at the gun. Go back and watch the Richie McGiunness and Dr. Kelly testimonies.

I will but how much of a threat could he have been shot three times and all Rittenhouse had to do was step back and lunging was useless.
Furthermore if someone just shot you 3 times and you have no weapon wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect the shot person to try to disarm the shooter who is trying to kill him?

I know a good way to not take 4 bullets. Don’t chase after and try to attack someone with a gun.

Yeah but that is not the law in that state for use of deadly force and we are talking about the law and not Dirty Harry.

Oh yeah. I know. A little tangent. Still good common sense though.

We need more conservatives on here. My thumbs can’t keep up with the 2 on 1.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

There was a curfew, he actually shouldn’t have been there and most reasonable people weren’t.

Nobody else had a visible gun, except his friends, who had fallen back.

He said he was there to put out fires but he put down the fire extinguisher, Id say that’s relevant.

”No reasonable person could know he was unarmed” and any reasonable person could see who was armed.

“Was being attacked” is good justification for shooting someone to you, ok then. Again, I’d like my daughters to grow up in a country without armed kids shooting anyone they “feel threatened by.” I like law and order.

I never said his actions were okay. People do things all the time that I disagree with. My argument is strictly legal. It sounds like your issues are with the laws on the book. Arguing whether Rittenhouse should be found guilty or not guilty is a different argument than arguing that the laws should be changed.

I don’t disagree with the law. I now believe that Rosenbaum was murdered.
I do believe that under the circumstances Rittenhouse should have stopped after the first shot and most definitely the second.
He has no right in any civilized place to execute an unarmed man with one arm and one hand who is also barely able to move.
So I’m being a little facetious but he had no visible weapon and he was most certainly incapacitated and Rittenhouse was in total and complete control. It was his decision to kill - at that point and the law everywhere says that cannot be allowed because it was no longer self defense.

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 5:03:00 PM (view original):
He most definitely was an active shooter in the traditional sense.

No he wasn’t. Not at all. Every person he shot was within 6 feet of him and was attacking him. Pretty sure the old ladies at prayer group at AME Emmanuel Church were not attacking Dylan Roof.

An active shooter is someone out shooting random people.