• 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!

Rittenhouse Defense Team Implodes

jaeger19 said:
Why would anyone be intimidated by your rifle if they were breaking into your business?
Click to expand...
Because they are committing a felony and they understood what was about to happen to them if they continued the attempt ie arrest or leathal force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

And to crap all over your ignorant idea that the ar intimidated them.......I have chased away several burglary suspects without a rifle or any visible firearm. They responded the same they ran.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Ah, yeah. “Those” reports.
Click to expand...
Those reports are everywhere buddy. The ones I have read say he claimed to be there to help. Nothing special and secret agent access lol. Try reading some pal.
 
jaeger19 said:
Wow..okay..so the guy WITHa rifle isn't a deadly threat ..but now anyone who approaches him IS a deadly threat.
You just made the case that by carrying a firearm you have made yourself less safe because now everyone around you is a deadly threat...
And you wonder why you have no credibility.
Click to expand...
the guy with the rifle running away is definitely a threat IF YOU ATTACK HIM so you don't go swinging an improvised weapon at him, or if you do , don't miss, because you might get shot and it very well could be appropriate self defense.
 
Daddyo said:
Because they are committing a felony and they understood what was about to happen to them if they continued the attempt ie arrest or leathal force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

And to crap all over your ignorant idea that the ar intimidated them.......I have chased away several burglary suspects without a rifle or any visible firearm. They responded the same they ran.
Click to expand...
According to you now..if you are carrying a rifle you just made them a deadly threat..
And since you were able to scare off folks without the rifle..
Then you just made the argument that carrying the rifle made you less safe.
Dude ..you are all over the place. Just face the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Hypothetical said:
the guy with the rifle running away is definitely a threat IF YOU ATTACK HIM so you don't go swinging an improvised weapon at him, or if you do , don't miss, because you might get shot and it very well could be appropriate self defense.
Click to expand...
Wait..so a fellow that has just shot an unarmed guy is not a threat..until he shoots another unarmed fellow..
And according to daddyo..because the fellow is carrying a rifle..everyone unarmed around him becomes a deadly threat.
Hmmmm...
 
jaeger19 said:
Wait..so a fellow that has just shot an unarmed guy is not a threat..until he shoots another unarmed fellow..
And according to daddyo..because the fellow is carrying a rifle..everyone unarmed around him becomes a deadly threat.
Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

personally, I see it as still a question as to whether the first guy was unarmed, so I am waiting until the trial for that.

the shooter was running away, and was not shooting others until one of them tried to attack him with an improvised weapon (the skateboard) , which was stupid. in that situation, if you are unarmed yourself, you're supposed to call the police. it is idiocy to go after the guy with a gun, without a gun.

now if RH had been actively shooting at others, including you, after the 1st incident then yes you should attack him if he is a threat to you at all costs, because you have no other option.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical said:
the guy with the rifle running away is definitely a threat IF YOU ATTACK HIM so you don't go swinging an improvised weapon at him, or if you do , don't miss, because you might get shot and it very well could be appropriate self defense.
Click to expand...

A guy with a rifle is a threat, period.
 
Daddyo said:
Those reports are everywhere buddy. The ones I have read say he claimed to be there to help. Nothing special and secret agent access lol. Try reading some pal.
Click to expand...

So the guy who murdered people said he was there to just help, and that suffices as a “report”.
 
Rich2018 said:
Testimony from a defendant is always laced with self-interest.
Click to expand...

Weird that Rittenhouse would insist he was there to help. Most murderers just come right out and say “I was there to murder people.”
 
Hypothetical said:
personally, I see it as still a question as to whether the first guy was unarmed, so I am waiting until the trial for that.

the shooter was running away, and was not shooting others until one of them tried to attack him with an improvised weapon (the skateboard) , which was stupid. in that situation, if you are unarmed yourself, you're supposed to call the police. it is idiocy to go after the guy with a gun, without a gun.

now if RH had been actively shooting at others, including you, after the 1st incident then yes you should attack him if he is a threat to you at all costs, because you have no other option.
Click to expand...
Based on Rittenhouses actions. He very much looks like an active shooter. Heck.. he just shot an unarmed man..and is running around..and people are yelling "he is shooting people"..
Its certainly reasonable for others in that situation.. to believe Rittenhouse is an active shooter and has just murdered one unarmed person and is looking to shoot others.
This is what I think is really weird about the defenders of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is supposedly justified in fearing for his life.. from a mob,, from unarmed people.. that "threatened him".
BUT.. its apparently its unreasonable for others.. who see Rittenhouse aiming his weapon at people. Who see him shoot an unarmed man and then run toward other people.. apparently its unreasonable for anyone else to see HIM as the threat.
 
jaeger19 said:
Based on Rittenhouses actions. He very much looks like an active shooter. Heck.. he just shot an unarmed man..and is running around..and people are yelling "he is shooting people"..
Its certainly reasonable for others in that situation.. to believe Rittenhouse is an active shooter and has just murdered one unarmed person and is looking to shoot others.
This is what I think is really weird about the defenders of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is supposedly justified in fearing for his life.. from a mob,, from unarmed people.. that "threatened him".
BUT.. its apparently its unreasonable for others.. who see Rittenhouse aiming his weapon at people. Who see him shoot an unarmed man and then run toward other people.. apparently its unreasonable for anyone else to see HIM as the threat.
Click to expand...


we will see what the court says. I certainly hope this one is televised. also how do you know the man was unarmed?
 
jaeger19 said:
Wow..okay..so the guy WITHa rifle isn't a deadly threat ..but now anyone who approaches him IS a deadly threat.
You just made the case that by carrying a firearm you have made yourself less safe because now everyone around you is a deadly threat...
And you wonder why you have no credibility.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

is "approaches" a valid synonym for "attempts to disarm"? your point is noted; such misrepresentation does speak to one's lack of credibility
 
Rich2018 said:
A guy with a rifle is a threat, period.
Click to expand...

while i cannot speak for the founding fathers, i am guessing such a real-world fact motivated them to craft the second amendment
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

is "approaches" a valid synonym for "attempts to disarm"? your point is noted; such misrepresentation does speak to one's lack of credibility
Click to expand...
Is it? Is yelling at someone synonym for "attempt to disarm?". According to Daddyo... anyone who is within striking distance is a deadly threat because they can kill with one punch..and can disarm you with impunity.. despite the fact you are wearing a tactical sling.
good dolly miss molly.. the extent you Rittenhouse supporters will go to fabricate some "imminent threat".
 
Hypothetical said:
we will see what the court says. I certainly hope this one is televised. also how do you know the man was unarmed?
Click to expand...
From watching the video and from the reports of witnesses and the police.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah..I get that you need to make yourself feel better. It's okay.
Obviously I understand the law on use of force and self defense.
You on the other hand are screaming that under the law Rittenhouse shouldn't be charged...well like I said you need to go tell the DA and judge in the rittenhouse case how you understand the law..while they do not.
Then you tell them how a man pointing an ar 15 isn't a deadly threat..but a man with a plastic bag can "kill with one punch". Explain to them that a guy with an ar 15 who just murdered a fellow isn't a deadly threat.. but a guy with a skateboard...oh nelly.....that guy..well every knows skateboards are the preferred weapon of killers..
Why..after you tell them that..be sure to regale them with tales of your gravy seal training and how you held off armed bandits..hordes of armed bandits.
So stop wasting time here and go. I am sure that once you explain it all to the DA ..you get this Rittenhouse thing cleared up by lunch... 🤣
Click to expand...
See the tactic? Deflect and attack lol..

You claim its obvious that you understand the law on self defense yet you were wrong on Zimmerman and Brown. Zimmerman a prime example of being charged NOT equating guilt. Being charged was political for Zimmerman and now Rittenhouse.

Perhaps you do know the law and the letter of it BUT given your track record something isn't right with you. You are always wrong! You don't know what constitutes a deadly threat, that is for sure. You continually compare deadly threats by level of severity when dead is dead. So even the mildest deadly threat leaves you just as dead as the bullet to the head. Thats ignorance of the threat. You also fail to recognize deadly threats that may not use traditional deadly tools like knives or bats. You claim a skateboard swinging man is not a deadly threat. I'm sorry but that alone disqualifies anything you say. You also focus on one part of the threat, the bag in rosenbaums case, and ignore the deadly threat posed by the man. He was attacking an armed man after all. All this brings many things into question namely the validity of your police training. Thats why I dont believe you are being genuine.

And yes those of us defending Rittenhouse understand that not all unarmed men constitute a deadly threat. However in this case based on Rittenhouse’s youth, the riot atmosphere, and Rittenhouse being armed, it is clearly a righteous shooting. Even more righteous are the shooting of the skateboard and glock armed men.

Finally again the lawful protecter is not considered a threat except to the law breaking attacker. So someone armed to the teeth defending his property is no threat to anyone not attacking that property. The ar I was carrying low ready during my events posed zero threat to any and all who were NOT actively threatening my business. So only someone engaged in unlawful behavior against myself or my business had anything to fear from my ar. You are allowing the violent attacker to attack because of the defender posing a threat via his firearm. If this thinking was the law those attempting to break into my business could have legally attacked me for being a threat to them.....because I was pointing and relaying what was going to happen if they continued. That is moronic and in opposition of the law.
 
Rich2018 said:
Over a month since any new on the story.
Click to expand...
The trial was supposed to start March 29th, but was delayed. Next thing scheduled is a pretrial hearing on May 17th.
 
Daddyo said:
See the tactic? Deflect and attack lol..

You claim its obvious that you understand the law on self defense yet you were wrong on Zimmerman and Brown. Zimmerman a prime example of being charged NOT equating guilt. Being charged was political for Zimmerman and now Rittenhouse.

Perhaps you do know the law and the letter of it BUT given your track record something isn't right with you. You are always wrong! You don't know what constitutes a deadly threat, that is for sure. You continually compare deadly threats by level of severity when dead is dead. So even the mildest deadly threat leaves you just as dead as the bullet to the head. Thats ignorance of the threat. You also fail to recognize deadly threats that may not use traditional deadly tools like knives or bats. You claim a skateboard swinging man is not a deadly threat. I'm sorry but that alone disqualifies anything you say. You also focus on one part of the threat, the bag in rosenbaums case, and ignore the deadly threat posed by the man. He was attacking an armed man after all. All this brings many things into question namely the validity of your police training. Thats why I dont believe you are being genuine.

And yes those of us defending Rittenhouse understand that not all unarmed men constitute a deadly threat. However in this case based on Rittenhouse’s youth, the riot atmosphere, and Rittenhouse being armed, it is clearly a righteous shooting. Even more righteous are the shooting of the skateboard and glock armed men.

Finally again the lawful protecter is not considered a threat except to the law breaking attacker. So someone armed to the teeth defending his property is no threat to anyone not attacking that property. The ar I was carrying low ready during my events posed zero threat to any and all who were NOT actively threatening my business. So only someone engaged in unlawful behavior against myself or my business had anything to fear from my ar. You are allowing the violent attacker to attack because of the defender posing a threat via his firearm. If this thinking was the law those attempting to break into my business could have legally attacked me for being a threat to them.....because I was pointing and relaying what was going to happen if they continued. That is moronic and in opposition of the law.
Click to expand...
Yawn
Lets voir dire your understanding of the use of deadly force.

One of your students gets in an argument with a person their size and the person .. says "I should teach you a lesson".. but is unarmed and and doing nothing but standing within striking distance of your student.

Do you tell your students that its okay to shoot the person.. because by saying "I should teach you a lesson". Means they are a deadly threat.. and so your student should draw their weapon and fire killing the person they are arguing with. ?

Please give us your expertise.

Yes or no. Is deadly force warranted in this situation.???
 
jaeger19 said:
Yawn
Lets voir dire your understanding of the use of deadly force.

One of your students gets in an argument with a person their size and the person .. says "I should teach you a lesson".. but is unarmed and and doing nothing but standing within striking distance of your student.

Do you tell your students that its okay to shoot the person.. because by saying "I should teach you a lesson". Means they are a deadly threat.. and so your student should draw their weapon and fire killing the person they are arguing with. ?

Please give us your expertise.

Yes or no. Is deadly force warranted in this situation.???
Click to expand...


Why not change it to carrying a gun and pointing it at the student ?
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's ok to be mad instead of using your presentation skills here to make good arguments, it's exactly what I expect from those frustrated from never actualy doing what they put so much time and effort into training for.
Click to expand...
Are you ignorant? What kind of man are you that you wish to put into action what you have practiced and prepared for when it means getting into a life and death struggle that if you lose you die and if you win you kill? Think about your statement. Sick like a killers mindset.

Sick thinking! Expected sadly.

Besides I love firearms and training. Well I use to love the training.

And I'm not mad pal. My arguments are extremely good which is why you continue to attack me personally. Also expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom