• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

jotathought said:
Fair statement .. Grosskreutz was convicted with a misdemeanor for carrying a firearm while intoxicated ... regardless .. if an individual is charging you with a firearm, would you just let him take you?
Click to expand...
lol...where was Grosskreutz "taking" Rittenhouse?
 
ASHES said:
Justified. Don't assault people. There is no evidence he was intimidating anyone or pointed his gun at people who weren't actively attacking him. All that video of him running away, no video of him pointing his gun at anyone prior to the first shooting.
Click to expand...
Pointing a rifle at people is assaulting. Its threatening. don;t go intimidating people to the point they feel they have to protect themselves and others.
There is evidence..as there is witness saying that he pointed his gun at people. Second.. We have his intent. How did he plan to protect property?
What was his plan?
His plan was to use his rifle as a means to intimidate.
No video of him pointing his rifle? Well except when he kills the fellow with the skateboard.. and shoots the other fellow.. who has a gun at his waist.
 
jotathought said:
Fair statement .. Grosskreutz was convicted with a misdemeanor for carrying a firearm while intoxicated ... regardless .. if an individual is charging you with a firearm, would you just let him take you?
Click to expand...
No, which is why I've spent hundreds of posts defending his actions in defending himself against all three men he shot.
 
dave8383 said:
I'll tell you what's not hard. Rittenhouse = domestic terrorist
Click to expand...
Rittenhouse = domestic terrorist eliminator ........there fixed it for you.

Let me guess IYO the guys he killed were choir boys and worked to feed the homeless on there days off from puppy rescue. Am I close?
 
Daddyo said:
Again I saw a man being chased by a mob of rioters even though he was armed with a formidable offensive rifle platform, the AR-15. He was running from them and not shooting at them! Only when he fell and was about to be killed by them did he fire. Classic self defense and actually far better than my fat arse would have done. This old man ain't running which means my AR's barrel would have been red hot.

So in summation what I saw told me the exact opposite of what it told you. An active shooter is wanting death so they would likely be shooting. Those chasing were dreggs. Violent rioting burning looting scum of the earth. That alone would give me pause. Dreggs want someone pretty bad so he must have done something pretty good if it has them angry.

So officer jaeger......before you insert yourself into a situation in which deadly force is not being threatened or used on YOU.......like being a bystander when folks are chasing an ar wielding man who isn't randomly shooting everyone........you had better know the facts!
Click to expand...
Thats right.. you "Saw man chased by a mob of rioters"
I saw.. and what the video portrays is a man with a rifle.. who shoots an unarmed man who was yelling at him and who threw a plastic bag at him.
What I saw and the video portrays is that same man with a rifle running down the road.. looking like an active shooter while one or two people try following him and stopping him.
You see what you want to see... not reality.
Thats why you have to make up "mob of rioters"... "burning and looting".
And "Dreggs".

How many unarmed people had those "dreggs".. shot that night? How many of those dregs were armed with an AR 15 that night?

Don;t strain yourself thinking up the answer.
 
jotathought said:
You see him as a defender? He was acting in self defense? Or was he part of the mob that was attacking Rittenhouse?
Click to expand...
He was making a citizen's arrest on a cold blooded murderer. I imagine the jury will see it much the same way.
 
calamity said:
He was making a citizen's arrest on a cold blooded murderer. I imagine the jury will see it much the same way.
Click to expand...
No they won't. If it was an attempted citizen's arrest, it wasn't legal, since Rittenhouse was justified in defending himself in the first shooting. He can defend himself against mistaken third parties.
 
jotathought said:
I've read it slowly and quickly .. Do you justify the attackers or not?
Click to expand...
Your question was "if an individual (Grosskreutz) is charging you (Rittenhouse) with a firearm, would you just let him take you?"

My answer was "No, which is why I've spent hundreds of posts defending his (Rittenhouse's) actions in defending himself against all three men (Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz) he shot."

There's no other way to read it than I'd have done the same thing in his position, and that's why I have been defending his use of deadly force in self defense for hundreds of posts.
 
ASHES said:
Your question was "if an individual (Grosskreutz) is charging you (Rittenhouse) with a firearm, would you just let him take you?"

My answer was "No, which is why I've spent hundreds of posts defending his (Rittenhouse's) actions in defending himself against all three men (Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz) he shot."

There's no other way to read it than I'd have done the same thing in his position, and that's why I have been defending his use of deadly force in self defense for hundreds of posts.
Click to expand...
You have far more patience than I. Hats off.
 
ASHES said:
Your question was "if an individual (Grosskreutz) is charging you (Rittenhouse) with a firearm, would you just let him take you?"

My answer was "No, which is why I've spent hundreds of posts defending his (Rittenhouse's) actions in defending himself against all three men (Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz) he shot."

There's no other way to read it than I'd have done the same thing in his position, and that's why I have been defending his use of deadly force in self defense for hundreds of posts.
Click to expand...

What I'm hearing is we agree
 
jotathought said:
What I'm hearing is we agree
Click to expand...
Yeah. When people arguing my position make incorrect statements, like Rosenbaum threw a Molotov or Grosskreutz was a felon illegally in possession of his pistol, I challenge it. That doesn't mean I don't defend Rittenhouse defending himself.
 
ASHES said:
Yeah. When people arguing my position make incorrect statements, like Rosenbaum threw a Molotov or Grosskreutz was a felon illegally in possession of his pistol, I challenge it. That doesn't mean I don't defend Rittenhouse defending himself.
Click to expand...

Hello friend!
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. you should stop before you get schooled again. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? You know that celebrated event in which American patriots.. protested the British government..
BY DESTROYING PRIVATE PROPERTY?

The vast vast vast.. number of people protesting were protesting government overreach.. peacefully. Which is why two of the fellows that Rittenhouse shot were armed with what? Oh thats right.. a PLASTIC BAG of Toiletries".. and a skateboard.


Side with the illegals? Travyon martin? Not illegal.. Michael Brown..not illegal.. Breanna taylor.. not illegal.. the list goes on an on.
Face it man.. you side with the big government.. fascists.
enough said.
Click to expand...
Wow lol the thugs rioting, burning, and looting you now compare to American patriots. What a shame.

Your tune would be different if they were about to burn down mamas house and of course your room in her basement. Your right to protest ends when you destroy someone else's property. Beyond that you are a domestic terrorist and not a patriot.

Martin illegally attack Zimmerman. You sided with him.

Michael Brown robbed a convenience store clerk, punched and attempted to disarm a cop, and then charged said cop. You sided with him.

Taylor was a tragic mistake. You refused to recognize this and demanded the mistaken officers be charged with murder. Even though they recieved fire first and had no choice but to return fire or die.

Finally you side with illegal immigrants over the citizens of this country.

So I stand behind my statement. You schooled me alright lol.
 
jaeger19 said:
Duh.. which is why I stated that the only one that possibly could be possible self defense was shooting the fellow with the firearm. EXCEPT that under the law.. you cannot be the aggressor and create the situation that then requires deadly force.

I find it amusing that you think that your personal experience.. which you can barely keep straight.. because you usually contradict yourself multiple times.. you think that somehow your singular experience makes you an expert.

What you and others find.. is that unlike you.. I generally don;t make it a habit of shooting my mouth off about things I don;t know about.
Click to expand...
What does the highlighted section of the following law mean to you?????in order to use deadly force you must be in fear of eminent death or great bodily injury to yourself or another.

Are you capable of causing death or great bodily injury to me while we both are unarmed? Just a question I won't take it as a threat or a tough guy thing. Just trying to see how you think.

What is disparity of force?

Are multiple violent but unarmed attackers capable of causing death or great bodily injury to a single unarmed male?

Can a skateboard kill a human? Can it cause great bodily harm?

I have many experiences both of my own and others from which to draw. But I also have 900 hours of criminal justice including 360 hrs spent interviewing officers and deputies. Have extensively reviewed Florida's use of deadly force law including paying LE and an attorney for instruction and advice when developing the curriculum for my firearm safety course. Been giving this course for 15 years or so now. Trained in fighting sports including boxing, karate, b jujitsu, and even traditional wrestling albeit as a youth mostly.

So once you answer a few of the above questions we can see who's experience is more correct. If you answer lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom