Canadian Money Forum banner
321 - 340 of 345 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
... you really don't get it. Did he needed to be there? To play victim?
Same with the attackers, they had a right to be there.
Did they need to be there?
Did they need to attack people?

Remember, in each case the attacker continued going after Rittenhouse, even as he tried to flee, which is not actually required in this situation under WI law.
There is a reason several states are "stand your ground" states
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #323 ·
Good summation by the lawyer, but I don't think he discussed the possibility that after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, everyone who chased and attacked him after that considered him to be an "active shooter" running away from a crime.

In Wisconsin, it would seem that it would not be wise to try to apprehend someone on the basis of believing they are an active shooter.

Fortunately in most States and in Canada, there is a duty to retreat before using self defense as a last resort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #324 · (Edited)
Rittenhouse was found not to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", which is necessary a high bar.

The Wisconsin justice system is a zitshow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Well he tried to retreat before using self defense.
Anywhere in the world self-defense in this case is protected.

Agreed though that Wisconsin justice system is a joke.
Democratic DA sets bail at 500$ and then at 1000$ for a guy with 50 page criminal record and active warrant in Nevada, while arresting a guy with multiple videos clearly showing self-defense - luckily jury system still works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
I wonder if anyone will have this thought…….

”I hate my neighbour! I’m going over to her place….and I’m provoking her until she takes a swing at me….then I’m unloading on her with AR15.” - self defence and all that.
... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.

Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.

Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.
But that's not what happened. There would have had to be 3 kids and 2 of them would have been armed and would only have been shot after the kid flees then falls and only shot after a loaded gun was pointed at his head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.

Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.
The verdict brings into question the legitimacy of self-defence classes especially for women and children.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #331 · (Edited)
In your opinion, nobody bears any personal responsibility for seeking out and injecting themselves into a violent situation that doesn't involve them.

Nobody needed Rittenhouse or his pals to protect an empty auto building and confront any rioters. The police were there and it is their job.

When did the duty transfer to untrained, unqualifed, unlicenced armed citizens to "serve and protect" the public ?

Rittenhouse was extremely lucky that the incident occurred in Wisconsin. In other states he would have been convicted.

Apparently you see nothing wrong with underage kids toting around a loaded AR15. What could possibly go wrong ?

I felt bad for Rittenhouse. He is just a dumb *** kid, where influence from bad sources filled the vacuum his parents left open.

He seems to live in a fantasy world, telling everyone he was a paramedic, and now talking about being nurse one day and a lawyer the next.

The alt right will use him, abuse him, and throw him to the wolves when he is of no value to their cause.

He already met with Donald Trump, and Tucker Carlson has used him as a prime time feature to boost ratings.

I hope this kid takes his lawyer's good advice...change his name, move somewhere else, and stay low.

Otherwise.......you know what. He will be back standing before a judge again someday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Situation wasn't violent until the thugs made it violent by attacking Kyle
He didn't inject himself in the violent situation, Rosenbaum dragged him in by creating violent situation.

Need for protection is completely subjective. Another branch of the business was burned down the day before. Rosenbaum was in the process of destroying it. Police was standing down.
It is subjective whether this scenario means there is a 'need for protection'. And what kind of protection was it anyway? Kyle ran away yelling 'friendly, friendly, friendly' - hardly a violent act.
It was an attempt at deterrence - a tactic used throughout millennia

Don't believe there is such duty. But citizens should look out for each other, help their neighbors, family, friends. Not exactly a controversial statement.

There is no justification for creating a violent situation - Rosenbaum created one and he paid for it - dearly.
Rittenhouse was the victim of assault.

Having a weapon doesn't justify violence, having a short skirt doesn't justify rape.
Don't be a violent thug and you will be fine. If you are a violent thug - I hope someone will be there to stop you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
In your opinion, nobody bears any personal responsibility for seeking out and injecting themselves into a violent situation that doesn't involve them.

Nobody needed Rittenhouse or his pals to protect an empty auto building. The police were there and it is their job.

When did the duty transfer to untrained, unqualifed, unlicenced armed citizens to "serve and protect" the public ?
I understand why you're upset...a white person successfully defended themself against violent thugs, one of them a convicted pedophile.

I'm just glad Rittenhouse wasn't killed, and would feel the same way regardless of his skin colour, gender, or political affiliation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #334 ·
You contradict yourself repeatedly in your own post.

You say the situation wasn't violent, and then say a building was burnt down the day before so Rittenhouse went there to protect a building.

There is no dispute that Rittenhouse voluntarily crossed state line to go to Kenosha, so he injected himself into the situation.

Why would a citizen militia be an acceptable replacement for the police if the police had decided to "stand down" ?

Rittenhouse was running away yelling "friendly, friendly" after he killed Rosenbaum because he was concerned he would be considered an active shooter.

It is the nature of twisted logic that it never makes sense, as exemplified by your responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #335 · (Edited)
Attending a protest with an AR15 would be a serious crime in Canada, let alone walking around in a threatening manner with it and actually shooting people.

One thing the Rittenhouse case does solidify for Canadians is we need to maintain and strenghthen gun ownership and restriction laws.

I am surprised the gun lobby in Canada would support a minor possessing a loaded AR15. It reveals why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Examples like Rittenhouse provide public support for government action, and make it easy for government to apply more restrictions on guns.

Perhaps people who advocate for further gun restrictions should thank the gun lobby for helping their cause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
No, I am not.
Situation was violent a day earlier, not the day of.
Acting as a deterrence is not a new tactic - and unless the other side is full of complete morons, it is extremely effective.
Situation on the day of the incident was not violent until Rosenbaum made it violent by assaulting Kyle.
You have a video. He was running away from Rosenbaum. You have sworn testimonies.
Don't lie when there is overwhelming evidence and proof that you are lying.

Well, in US support for gun restrictions is actually dropping recently. Perhaps because streets are becoming dangerous, DAs are releaseing criminals on 500$ and 1000$ bails, and because people like Kyle were beat up to the brink of death in the riots.
People are no longer willing to 'let themselves get beat up' like the prosecutor suggested Kyle should do.
Canada also just had highest amount of murders since 1990 - the situation is getting worse here as well. Not quite as bad as in California, Oregon, and New York where lunatics in power promote crime, but we are trending in wrong direction
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
He was much closer to his home than Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were. The state line just happened to be there. And that's on top of having his father and work in Kenosha.
The quote about 'crossing state lines' is absolutely laughable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #339 ·
You say "voluntarily crossed a state line" as if it's a crime? Was a law broken?

By the way, several of his family members including his dad live in Kenosha.
He wasn't at his father's home when he killed the protestors.

He went to Kenosha at the invitation of the group for the purpose of going to the riot area to "protect" property.

They aren't law enforcement. They had no authority to stop or question anyone. They had no authority to use their weapons.

They were there solely for the purpose of intimidation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
He wasn't at his father's home when he killed the protestors.

He went to Kenosha at the invitation of the group for the purpose of going to the riot area to "protect" property.

They aren't law enforcement. They had no authority to stop or question anyone. They had no authority to use their weapons.

They were there solely for the purpose of intimidation.
They didn't stop or question anyone.
He was simply assaulted by rioters and criminals, and defended himself.
The verdict is in, it is clear, and prosecution acknowledges it
 
321 - 340 of 345 Posts
Top