• 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?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.
 
I hadn't heard this particular narrative. Is there a link?
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

They attacked him with lethal force. That's how it's self-defense.
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

Here's a better narrative.

The Kenosha Shootings / Kyle Rittenhouse: A Tactical and Legal Analysis: UPDATED: 1st Shooter ID'd? - AR15.COM
 
bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Are you serious dude? AR15.com? LOL!!!!

Did you read anything there? It's laid out fairly well.

It's a damn sight more researched of a narrative that the OP has.
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man.

Then IMO you have "gleaned" nothing.

1. "Stand your ground" does not apply. If one is being chased by someone who has already attempted bodily harm, one can seek to defend themselves from further attacks. THAT is self-defense.

2. The video evidence CLEARLY shows the "first man" (Rosenbaum) trying to hit a fleeing Rittenhouse with a plastic bag containing one or more solid objects. Then continuously CHASING a still fleeing Rittenhouse around the cars in the lot attempting to assault him and take his weapon. That's what led to the FIRST shooting.

I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say...only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed.

Wrong! At least TWO of his assailants who were shot had been "armed." One with a handgun. The other with a skateboard. Which he had used to strike at Rittenhouse's head. If you honestly think a skateboard cannot be used as a deadly weapon, then you know NOTHING about it.

RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him.

Speculation, and not supported by the video/audio evidence. While he was on the phone people around Rosenbaum were already pointing and yelling Rittenhouse was the shooter. They saw it. He took off when they started yelling "get him."

The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead.

Wrong. The FIRST one, who was not shot, hit Rittenhouse in the back of the head with what looks like a rock as Rittenhouse was running down the street. The NEXT one to attack Rittenhouse was a man attempting to curb-stomp his head, leaping back when he saw the gun-barrel coming his way and the first shot was fired.



The third person was the one who struck Rittenhouse with the Skateboard. Then the FOURTH guy with the gun came forward to try for the Rittenhouse's rifle. When he stopped Rittenhouse didn't shoot him. Thinking he was no threat he tried to turn away and get up but that individual then had his own gun in hand and was coming back to do what? Take Rittenhouse's gun? Shoot him? Try to do both? This time Rittenhouse SAW that gun and shot again, hitting the man in the upper arm.

At this point Rittenhouse finally gets up stands for a moment to get his bearings. Six or more gunshots from unknown sources ring out, and Rittenhouse turns to run away again.

The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

No, self-defense works anytime one acts against aggressors attempting to cause death or great bodily harm when one cannot flee!

Rittenhouse was unable to flee the first person chasing him resulting in the first shooting.

He then tried to flee again, not stopping even after being struck in the head with an object. Not until he tripped and fell. While he was down and trying to recover he was attacked three times in a row, by "curb-stomp" guy, by "skateboard" guy, and then by "handgun" guy.

When they had been dealt with, he gets up, there are six or seven shots. Does he react by "standing his ground" and unloading on the crowd? NO!

He turns and again begins to run away to safety, towards the police.

Please explain where you see anything that supports your idea he was not consistently acting in self-defense and flight mode?
 
Last edited:
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

We won't know all the details until after the trial, maybe not even then as the accused is a minor. From what we've been told by eye witnesses is that Rittenhouse shot and killed a man, then ran off saying he had just killed someone. When the crowd tried to stop him, he shot and killed another, and injured someone else.

He was seen going toward the police after the first shooting with his hands up, but they did not take him into custody then.

Rittenhouse claimed he was there to "protect someone's business," but what business he was protecting is not clear.

What Trump says about the incident is totally irrelevant.
 
We won't know all the details until after the trial, maybe not even then as the accused is a minor. From what we've been told by eye witnesses is that Rittenhouse shot and killed a man, then ran off saying he had just killed someone. When the crowd tried to stop him, he shot and killed another, and injured someone else.

He was seen going toward the police after the first shooting with his hands up, but they did not take him into custody then.

Rittenhouse claimed he was there to "protect someone's business," but what business he was protecting is not clear.

What Trump says about the incident is totally irrelevant.

He shot and killed a man that attacked him using lethal force.
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

We'll see how it pans out in court, but he was from out of state, illegally armed, and running around a protest. So there's that. We'll see if the "well I shot one guy in the head because of a plastic bag, so of course I had to kill again" argument comes off as self-defense or if he spends considerable time in prison.
 
We'll see how it pans out in court, but he was from out of state, illegally armed, and running around a protest. So there's that. We'll see if the "well I shot one guy in the head because of a plastic bag, so of course I had to kill again" argument comes off as self-defense or if he spends considerable time in prison.

How was he illegally armed?
 
How was he illegally armed?

Under 18, cannot open carry in WI. And he's being charged with possession of a dangerous weapon while under 18. So it was obviously not legal for him to carry around that weapon as he did.
 
Under 18, cannot open carry in WI. And he's being charged with possession of a dangerous weapon while under 18. So it was obviously not legal for him to carry around that weapon as he did.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
29.593(1)(a)(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
He appears to have been in compliance with 941.28, 29.304 and 29.593, so the age restrictions in 948.60 don't apply to a 17 year old.
 
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
29.593(1)(a)(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
He appears to have been in compliance with 941.28, 29.304 and 29.593, so the age restrictions in 948.60 don't apply to a 17 year old.

I mean, as great a legal expert that you are, he is being charged will illegal possession. So there's that. He wasn't hunting, so he obviously was in violation of 29.304, nor was he submitting to requirements for certification of hunting approval, so obviously he violated 29.593. So since he was in non compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, 948.60 applies and is why he was charged appropriately.

So not much of a lawyer there, and it seems he is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and was indeed illegally carrying.
 
I mean, as great a legal expert that you are, he is being charged will illegal possession. So there's that. He wasn't hunting, so he obviously was in violation of 29.304, nor was he submitting to requirements for certification of hunting approval, so obviously he violated 29.593. So since he was in non compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, 948.60 applies and is why he was charged appropriately.

So not much of a lawyer there, and it seems he is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and was indeed illegally carrying.

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'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.

Well, we shall certainly see if that's the case. I highly doubt it, as legal experts rarely grow rampant on the internet, though many claim to be. But this will be heard before judge and jury. Then we'll see.
 
Well, we shall certainly see if that's the case. I highly doubt it, as legal experts rarely grow rampant on the internet, though many claim to be. But this will be heard before judge and jury. Then we'll see.

It's really not that difficult of a law to interpret.
 
It's really not that difficult of a law to interpret.

internet legal experts came up with an idea like sovereign immunity, so there is no bounds to their stupidity
 
If it's legal to pick up a rifle and come to a place where there are protests and civil unrest, then the law needs to be changed.

If this was a hunting expedition, then man was the quarry.
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.

Where do you get that from??? When the mob caught up with him, he wasnt shooting anyone. He was running toward the police line. He then only shot those who were trying to harm him. Thats where self defense comes in.
 
I really do not see how the shooting by Rittenhouse can be considered self defense. First, Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. From everything I have gleaned Rittenhouse shot someone across the street and then went over and found he had killed the man. I have found nothing to show why he shot the man as the reports say only one of the persons Rittenhouse shot was actually armed. RIttenhouse supposedly called a friend and told him he had killed someone and when he was overheard several people started to chase him. The first one was unarmed and trying to get the gun for Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shot him dead. The third man was armed and Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, just about taking the man's arm off, but the man is alive. So Rittenhouse shot three men and now is charged with two counts of homicide. Exactly where is the self defense unless you count the people that he shot who were trying to stop him from shooting others. That defense might work in a stand your ground state, but not in Wisconsin. So where did self defense start? And now we have Trump defending Rittenhouse which will make it almost impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs. They will have to overcome the statements by Trump to get a conviction and if they get a conviction Rittenhouse's lawyers can use it to say Rittenhouse did not get a fair trial as there were only anti Trump people on the jury. I know trump is playing to his base, but he should stay out of it.
the first guy was attacking charging him. in that environment, any reasonable person would consider it situation of potential great bodily harm”. That is all he needs for s self defense claim.

And there is ample video of this perp earlier cussing people out and trying to pick fights, he was a prison hardened felon (confirmed) looking to stomp someone. Yes self defense seems obvious here. No way he is convicted. Contrast thst ahole trying to start fights and attack with Rittenhouse Proper behavior all throughout extensive video. It’s open and shut.
 
Where do you get that from??? When the mob caught up with him, he wasnt shooting anyone. He was running toward the police line. He then only shot those who were trying to harm him. Thats where self defense comes in.

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
 
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

No, you don’t. Shooting someone in self defense is not a license for others to relentlessly pursue and assault you.
 
Back
Top Bottom