Rittenhouse Defense Team Implodes

[Daddyo]

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.

Let's try once again the guy with the rifle is ONLY a deadly threat if his intent is to use that rifle to cause death or GBI.

Example me.....we open carry on a utility belt in my business. Still I am no more a deadly threat to anyone than the customer who is concealed carrying. What makes us a threat is INTENT!

Someone approaching me while I'm armed is ONLY a deadly threat if their intent is to serioisly hurt or kill me. The presence of the gun amplifies any attack simply because the attacker will gain control of it if successful.

Read the crap you post before challenging someone's credibility lol. You can't even grasp the most basic necessities in justifiable use of deadly force. I've explained it multiple times already.

Police carry a deadly weapon yet you dont consider it or them a deadly threat why? The answer explains it perfectly.......because their intent is not to hurt or kill you.

 

[Daddyo]

You've never actualy used that training. You have zero experience.

Thank goodness I have zero experience.

Whats your points?

 

[Daddyo]

Not that there’s any reason to take Rittenhouse’s word, but can you provide evidence that Rittenhouse said so before the shootings?

Here’s the law. Point out what part you think is flexible;
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) 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.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Part of the law you left out......"Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces."

Flexibility! Some say self defense is covered as well.

 

[Daddyo]

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.

The rifle makes you less safe if you engage in a hand to hand fight with a violent unarmed man while so armed! Sad that this is so difficult for you. I haven't met someone as ignorant as you on all things self defense.

Trust me buddy you are laughed at. I read your posts to my customers and friends. It's like comedy you are so misguided.

Skate board not a deadly threat lol!

Open carry means you are threatening all who see your firearm lol.

And much much more.

 

[Daddyo]

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...

Finish it.........everyone unarmed around him becomes a deadly threat IF THEY TEY TO ATTACK HIM! LOL

Come one man. Don't lie. If you aren't lying then you just aren't intelligent enough to debate this. You keep taking out the most important pieces to try to fit your narrative.

Ability, opportunity, and INTENT!

 

[ASHES]

Part of the law you left out......"Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces."

Flexibility! Some say self defense is covered as well.

He was excepted from 2a by 3c, in my opinion based on the text of 3c.

 

[Daddyo]

So the guy who murdered people said he was there to just help, and that suffices as a “report”.

It was "reported" in the media therefore it is a "report" christ almighty.

 

[Daddyo]

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.

You claim just having a rifle openly carried is threatening to all who see it. So all armed to you are a threat lol.

Lol still laughing.

 

[Rich2018]

It was "reported" in the media therefore it is a "report" christ almighty.

So you place trust in the main stream media when it suits you ?

 

[Daddyo]

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".

Yes anyone within striking distance............now absorb the next part carefully.........WHO WAS MAKING VIOLENT THREATS TO YOU!

So stop the lying. I gave you the complete justification process. Ability, opportunity, and intent. We covered the fact that someone attacking you while armed makes justification easier. We also covered that the attacker had to be capable.......as in big enough to hurt or kill. So don't cherry pick to make your case stronger.

 

[Daddyo]

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.???

Maybe!

Prior to that situation I suggest they avoid getting into arguments. Liability is born from instigation. Now if its a one way argument from the other person with that threat I suggest they attempt to remove themselves from the danger IE retreat. Its actually preferable to not have allowed them within striking distance to begin with. If all else fails AND they have you in fear of death or GBI then they are justified.

Remember in Florida the badguy is considered to be able to hurt or kill aka having the ability to do it IF they have a weapon, size difference, numbers of attackers ie more than one, are fight trained (boxing,wrestling,mma,karate etc), man vs woman ( except in the most extreme cases).

I always suggest doing everything possible to avoid deadly force. Even though we no longer have to attempt to retreat with stand your ground.

BTW your example is the most difficult of all scenarios to figure justification. Thats why we cover the topic completely including the 3 justification necessities ability, opportunity, and intent. Disparity of force etc. Been doing it for a long time. As I already told you I consulted professionals specifically for use of force questions. The NRA doesn't like instructors covering it. Likely for questions such as yours. I was forced to cover it as an additional course after the NRA's first steps course.

Funny that you would attempt to compare that with Rosenbaum threatening and then making multiple attempts to attack Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse did everything possible to avoid using deadly force including running away from his attackers. He was textbook perfect from the video I saw. Waiting to the bitter and even unsafe last minute before using DF.

 

[Daddyo]

You're the guy to go to when we're talking about basic gun saftey, or shooting at the range. If you have any experience shooting competitively, we'll come to you for advice on competitive shooting as well.

Because you have actual experience doing that.

But when it comes to handling a lethal force encounter, you're not qualified on that topic.

Awesome so you go get your military combat vet to train you lol.

I will continue to train in the tactics that experts have developed through actual civilian gun fight after incident reviews. What worked what didn't. What problems arose and how to correct them efficiently. Problems caused by adrenaline etc. Situational awareness and threat levels. Basically stuff you have no idea about lol.

Tap rack bang, weak hand training, avoiding the slide lock, front site focus training, double taps, controlled pairs, getting good hits fast, proper reloading, tactical reloading, use of cover, shooting on the move, etc.

And tactics based on your position in the reactionary curve.

You have no freaking idea buddy lol.

And I am proud to say thank goodness I have no experience in shootouts. Anytime you wanna come down and compare training its my treat for all but the ammo.

 

[bomberfox]

This is why we have riots and protests. People like you who are ignorant of the subject and quick to judge. People who have a disrespect for authority. People who have a complete and utter ignorance of fighting and what damage a large violent man can do to another human.

I can only say Michael Brown can kill with his bare hands very quickly. You would be a fool to allow him to engage you in unarmed battle. Based on your history of story telling you would lose and either be hurt or killed and then disarmed.

Michael Brown, according to testimony backed by forensics and witnesses, robbed the store clerk, violently attacked the cop, and charged the same cop. The robbery gives motive for the violent resist and is very relevant. The officer didn't know about the robbery at the time of the stop which explains him not being prepared with a felony stop and back up.

Finally the blood. You can determine the direction someone is moving and if they are moving by the blood droplet. Educate yourself. Heck try it at home for yourself.

You certainly shouldn't be talking about this case or any other that you have little or no knowledge of.

How would you like it if one of your family was on trial and folks were spreading utter nonsense and garbage about your case? How would you feel if your self defense case was ruled justifiable and then folks like you put pressure on and threaten violence to force a DA to charge you? Folks who just don't understand the issue. Folks willing to lie to get you charged. Folks willing to change what they originally said to police because of that pressure(as in the Zimmerman case)?

If Michael Brown attacked you and you were armed, you would believe it a deadly threat within seconds lol. But we all know you wouldn't allow that. You would use your firearm. Just like the guys you all call cowards and unjustified. Sad. Rules for thee but not for me.

Authority.... lol respect for authority is only for poor folks. ‘Murica. **** authority.

 

[bomberfox]

I do love the keyboard boot lickers. I really do lol.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I will continue to train in the tactics that experts have developed through actual civilian gun fight after incident reviews.

No one said you shouldn't attend training.

 

[Daddyo]

Yeah ..you realize you contradict yourself right?



So on one hand..they must have intent ability and opportunity.
Then in the next breath all that goes out the window because "unarmed man" is already capable.

You just kind of make up crap as you go along

Dude face facts..you are a gravy seal and have no business teaching anyone on the concepts of self defense and use of deadly force.

You are going to get some shot and a student sent to jail if you persist.

Nope just having to bottle feed the ignorant step by step.

An unarmed man is capable of causing death or GBI. Yes there are exceptions but you spoke as if no unarmed man was so capable.

And you are a keyboard Rambo. Ignorance like yours makes the name calling a badge of honor.

Your skateboard joke. Your unarmed man poses no threat tripe. Your claims that the mere presence of a gun is threatening. Your continued claim that an armed guy being chased by several men is automatically an active shooter. And much more idiotic garbage like being a reserve cop and some big fighter. Yet you dont understand how unarmed men can cause Death or GBI or justifiable use of force lol.

Gravy seal out.

 

[Daddyo]

Umm yep..I set up a hypothetical..
You went into riitenhouse..fleeing from a crowd..he wasnt..
And one of the firing a gun..they weren't.
Rittenhouse got into an argument with rosenbaum.. there was no mob chasing him..merely Rosenbaum following him yelling and throwing a plastic bag. Rittenhouse then turns and kills Rosenbaum. Who was unarmed and did not represent a deadly threat.

Ah but Rosenbaum did offer a deadly threat, himself! That's what you can't grasp lol. Rosenbaum made threats. He made attempts to close the distance to carry out the threats. He attempted to batter the victim Rittenhouse by throwing something at him. Finally he chased the victim after the victim tried to flee from his attempts at violence. Classic justifiable use of deadly force.

Rittenhouse was threatened. RH, obviously in fear of Rosenbaum, retreated. RH, after being unsuccessful at escaping the threat posed by Rosenbaum, turns and fires a life saving shot.

Rittenhouse would have been justified even under pre standards your ground Florida.

Let's try something for a change. Lets blame the guy who started the violence that night. None of this happens if Rosenbaum, the psycho, doesn't foolishly attack RH. He has been punished for his stupidity already.

That's the bottom line. Blaming the boy for going doesn't change it. Blaming his retarded mother for taking him doesn't change it. Rosenbaum screwed up plain and simple.

 

[Daddyo]

Factually, you are guessing at Good’s reasoning for amending his original statement. Something that is not common among witnesses to a traumatic/violent event.

Until/unless you provide actual proof that Good changed amended his testimony out of fear of retaliation, your assertion is worthless.

To be clear, the problem with your assertion is that it’s just another of your unsupported opinions. Not a proven fact.

As I’ve already noted, Zimmerman’s injuries may have happened the way you have asserted. They could, just as possible, also have been a result of Zimmerman banging his own head on the concrete sidewalk after being punched in face and falling backwards, or from rolling around on the ground, fighting with Martin.

Says the guy that has been repeatedly proven dishonest.

Martin

I’ll retract when you can show where I argued who was on top when Zimmerman shot Martin.

Who includes prejudicial and completely irrelevant information?

You.

Martin’s activities prior to his death matter no more than Zimmerman’s assault on his father-in-law a few months after being acquitted of murdering Martin.

George Zimmerman's Wife on 911 Tape: 'I Am Really, Really Scared'

George Zimmerman was released without charges after his wife called 911 to say he punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened to shoot him and his wife.

www.google.com

Your word is very, very far from being “proof”.
Considering that several of your assertions have already been positively disproved by well known reliable sources and court documents, your “word” is better described as anti-truth.

Another stupid lie from Daddyo. “GOOD COPS” weren’t there when Zimmerman killed Martin, so they couldn’t testify one way or the other.

And yet another stupid Daddyo lie. You don’t know what the jury did or did not believe.

By the end of the trial, half of the jury believed Zimmerman was guilty of either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

“A member of the jury in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial spoke publicly for the first time Monday night, saying that only three of six jurors thought Zimmerman should be acquitted when deliberations began - and they all cried when it was over.Two members of the all-female jury believed Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, while one felt he was guilty of second-degree murder”

Zimmerman juror: He shouldn't have gotten out of that car

A member of the jury in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial spoke publicly for the first time Monday night, saying that only three of six jurors thought Zimmerman should be acquitted when deliberations began - and they all cried when it was over.Two members of the all-female jury...

www.nbcnews.com

No.

Fantasy. Watch the trial and you will understand what I and the jury did.

Did you watch the trial or not? Simple question!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Part of the law you left out......"Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces."

Flexibility! Some say self defense is covered as well.

I didn’t “leave out” anything. What level of offense wasn’t/isn’t the point. That Rittenhouse clearly broke the law was/is.

And since you’ve brought up (not the first, second, third, etc. time it has come up) the fact that it is a misdemeanor, it’s well worth noting that it is a Class A misdemeanor, the most severe misdemeanor, just below felony offenses, with penalties including fines not to exceed $10,000, imprisonment for up to 9 months, or both.

And some can say whatever stupid shit they want about “flexibility”. I wouldn’t put any bets on it though.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Fantasy.

A generous description for many of your claims.

Watch the trial and you will understand what I and the jury did.

If you watched the trial, why have you gotten so much wrong? Because it’s just another of your fantasy assertions?

Did you watch the trial or not? Simple question!

No, I was working.

Do you really think that after a year plus of intense media scrutiny and information regularly being released to the public, including every single matter you have attempted to lie about, that watching the entire trial (if you actually did) makes you better informed?

 

[Rich2018]

No one said you shouldn't attend training.

Best done without a gun in sight though.

 

[jaeger19]

You claim just having a rifle openly carried is threatening to all who see it. So all armed to you are a threat lol.

Lol still laughing.

Yeah.. we are all laughing at you.

YOU think everyone who is UNARMED.. is a deadly threat just waiting to happen and kill you with one punch..
And yet no one should even consider an armed person a threat.

I think its cute how you try to walk back what you have been saying...

NOW.. you are trying are running around making claims that if YOU are carrying a firearm.. suddenly everyone around you becomes more of a threat because "they could take my gun".

SO.. everyone around you becomes more of a threat.. but the guy WITH THE ACTUAL FIREARM.. isn;t...

How silly.

 

[jaeger19]

Ah but Rosenbaum did offer a deadly threat, himself! That's what you can't grasp lol. Rosenbaum made threats. He made attempts to close the distance to carry out the threats. He attempted to batter the victim Rittenhouse by throwing something at him. Finally he chased the victim after the victim tried to flee from his attempts at violence. Classic justifiable use of deadly force.

Rittenhouse was threatened. RH, obviously in fear of Rosenbaum, retreated. RH, after being unsuccessful at escaping the threat posed by Rosenbaum, turns and fires a life saving shot.

Rittenhouse would have been justified even under pre standards your ground Florida.

Let's try something for a change. Lets blame the guy who started the violence that night. None of this happens if Rosenbaum, the psycho, doesn't foolishly attack RH. He has been punished for his stupidity already.

That's the bottom line. Blaming the boy for going doesn't change it. Blaming his retarded mother for taking him doesn't change it. Rosenbaum screwed up plain and simple.

Yeah.. its clear you love fantasy.
SO.. We have Rittenhouse who was carrying a rifle.. who according to witnesses was pointing his rifle at people.... According to you.. no deadly threat. POINTING A RIFLE AT PEOPLE.. no threat.

Meanwhile Rosenbaum.. who is unarmed and throws a plastic bag of toiletries at Rittenhouse is attempting to "BATTER" Rittenhouse with his thrown bag of toiletries.. and his yelling at Rittenhouse. THOSE are deadly threats.. but not pointing a loaded rifle at people.

You need to stop being silly. Rittenhouse was not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm from an unarmed man who was yelling at him and threw a plastic bag of toiletries at him. Which is why he was charged.. and hopefully convicted.

You can make up the fantasy of the "one punch kill".. and "battering with a plastic bag of toiletries"... And how yelling is a "threat". Fantasy of violent mobs chasing Rittenhouse (that didn;t exist).

Like I said.. run up to WI and explain to the DA and the Judge how they got it wrong and don;t understand the law.. only you do.. and thats a fellow with an AR 15 rifle pointing it at people.. is not a threat.
Unarmed people with plastic bags of toiletries are.

 

[Daddyo]

As I’ve already noted, Zimmerman’s injuries may have happened the way you have asserted. They could, just as possible, also have been a result of Zimmerman banging his own head on the concrete sidewalk after being punched in face and falling backwards, or from rolling around on the ground, fighting with Martin.

You are either ignorant or willfully misleading members on this board.

Zimmerman fell and banged his own head?

Flys in the face of witness testimony. Good and others might have changed their testimony but they witnessed one man in top of the other punching down. They testified to this.

Now if you don't understand that this makes your assertion ridiculous you are ignorant. If you do understand this and still pedal that bull crap assertion, you are a liar.

Again only one man had injuries consistent with witness testimony and that was Zimmerman.

All the physical evidence including the bullet holes in Martins clothes corroborate Zimmerman’s story.

All the physical evidence supports Good's original statements to police that Martin was on top.

I could show you a video and it wouldn't help you lol.

If I walks and quacks like a duck it must be a lizard........thats what you sound like lol.

 

[Daddyo]

Continuing to push the crap you just wrote conclusively removes you from the set of all people who should be taken seriously on this topic.

There is video of Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum for at least half a block. Then there's more video of many people chasing him after Rosenbaum is shot. He flees twice.


You are wrong. Someone did fire a gun behind Rittenhouse. This has been known for months and is not even a little bit disputed. There's video of it. We even know who did it. The shooter's name is Joshua Ziminski. He was arrested for it. He admitted to doing it.


Maybe. But so what?


Rittenhouse was running. Rosenbaum was running after him. To reduce that to "following" is to display either such ignorance of the subject or such willful dishonesty that your statements on this subject can be safely dismissed as not credible.


This wasn't the end of Rosenbaum's actions. Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the incident knows this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.


...after hearing a gunshot behind him, and after Rosenbaum appears to lunge forward toward Rittenhouse.


If it is reasonable to believe someone is trying to take your deadly weapon from you by force, it is reasonable to use deadly force against them. That's why cops shoot people trying to take their gun.

Awesome post!