• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is it self defense?

You lose the self defense excuse when you kill someone first
People have a right to use reasonable force to subdue him since he is an active threat

As soon as he ran and tried to remove himself from the situation then the ones chasing him become the aggressors. That's when it became a self defense situation. He only shot when he was unable to retreat any further. All that has to be proven is there a legitimate claim of threat to bodily harm or death.
 
We have judges and juries to put DA’s in their place. This is unlikely ever to see trial.

He will get his day in court. But currently there is probable cause of a crime
 
They attacked him with lethal force. That's how it's self-defense.

The man without a weapon threw a plastic bag at him. I guess that is lethal force to a whimp.
 
Or maybe the DA has seen the evidence and thinks he is guilty

Anything is possible. After I saw that idiot in Atlanta charge the cop that shot Rayshard Brooks with murder I'll believe that any DA is capable of believing and prosecuting anything.
 
Anything is possible. After I saw that idiot in Atlanta charge the cop that shot Rayshard Brooks with murder I'll believe that any DA is capable of believing and prosecuting anything.

And any trumper will believe any white guy is always right....even if they have their knee on the neck of a black man
 
He's being charged with first degree murder, too, which is spurious. He wasn't hunting, and he's over 16, so he was in compliance of 29.304 and 29593, which only apply when you are hunting. The prohibition of someone under 18 from openly carrying a dangerous weapon only applies in the case of it being a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun, neither of which he was carrying.

According to Wisconsin law, he was carrying legally.

He is from Illinois where you have to be 18 to open carry.
 
And any trumper will believe any white guy is always right....even if they have their knee on the neck of a black man

giphy.gif
 
As soon as he ran and tried to remove himself from the situation then the ones chasing him become the aggressors. That's when it became a self defense situation. He only shot when he was unable to retreat any further. All that has to be proven is there a legitimate claim of threat to bodily harm or death.

SO if you see someone kill someone and then leave you would not follow and when there were police available yell to them that the person had shot a person. It was not the followers fault he fell and they came up on him. They would have seen him as a continuing threat to others. If this was a BLM member you would be yelling hang the bastard.
 
bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Are you serious dude? AR15.com? LOL!!!!

Here's a legal analysts from a lawyer who is licenced in Wisconsin. I haven't listened to the entire thing myself, but he does cover Wisconsin's self defense laws.

Link
 
Here's a legal analysts from a lawyer who is licenced in Wisconsin. I haven't listened to the entire thing myself, but he does cover Wisconsin's self defense laws.

Link

He is licensed but does not practice here. You are automatically licensed/admitted to the Bar, in Wisconsin if you attend a law school in Wisconsin
 
You know what I wonder, If Trump will have Barr take this whole thing over and rule it to be self defense. Would not surprise me at all.
...what?

Do you have even a fundamental comprehension of how the justice system works in the US?

The ignorance required to actually post something this nonsensical, let alone think it in the first place, is staggering.
 
He is from Illinois where you have to be 18 to open carry.
NEWSFLASH: He was in Wisconsin, not Illinois! Illinois law means, as the Brits say, **** all in Wisconsin.
 
The man without a weapon threw a plastic bag at him. I guess that is lethal force to a whimp.

He threw a brick, wrapped in a plastic bag and then continued to persue Rittenhouse as he retreated. When Rittenhouse retreated, the child molestor should have broken off the persuit. Rittenhouse, a minor, was being chased and attacked by a child molestor.
 
I have a CCW and have carried for about 25 years, and taken classes and read a bunch of books on the subject. Let me tell you my take on this. Each shot has to be looked at independently. So he could be okay on some of the shots and not okay on others. I think we are actually talking about 2 separate shooting events, the first shooting, him running away and they the other shootings. Some have said that he crossed state lines with a firearm and was under age to possess that firearm. While maybe true, it doesn't necessarily stop him from claiming self defense.

Supposedly, he was just standing there, and one of the rioters tried to grab his gun. If this is the case, he could well say that he had the right to defend himself. A lot will depend on small details of this shooting. I haven't seen any video of the first shooting, and haven't seen any accounts that I believe are 100% correct. I think we are just going to have to wait for the trial to get any solid info on the first shooting.

Then, he disengaged and tried to run away. This is important. He made an attempt to leave the scene and did not just start spraying bullets everywhere. This helps his case.

Then, three guys attack him. At least one of them had a gun, and another hit him with a skate board. These two shots where pretty much self defense. He shot at a third guy, who may or may not have been armed. This shot can be argued about.

After he did the second shots, he disengaged again and didn't spray bullets into the mob. This also helps his case.

We won't know about the first guy he shot until we get better info, but two of the other guys he shot were pretty clearly self defense. Then there is the guy he shot at and missed - don't know about him. My best guess with the limited knowledge we now have is that we will get some type of split verdict, or maybe some type of reckless endangerment charge.
 
SO if you see someone kill someone and then leave you would not follow and when there were police available yell to them that the person had shot a person. It was not the followers fault he fell and they came up on him. They would have seen him as a continuing threat to others. If this was a BLM member you would be yelling hang the bastard.

He was not the aggressor in any of the 3 victim situations. Law will be applied from a legal standpoint, not an emotional one. Although that seems to be slowly changing as well...
 
Back
Top Bottom