• 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

Rich2018 said:
So what ?

We were discussing how unarmed civilians can subdue even an active shooter, and for it not to be considered suicide.
Click to expand...
It's apples and oranges if the event you're talking about isn't an active shooter situation, but an uninformed crowd full of mistaken 3rd parties responding incorrectly to a legitimate self-defence shooting. Nobody tried subduing him, there were plenty of opportunities where they could have but didn't, instead, they made ineffectual melee attacks, and one poorly strategized attack with a firearm.
 
ASHES said:
It's apples and oranges if the event you're talking about isn't an active shooter situation, but an uninformed crowd full of mistaken 3rd parties responding incorrectly to a legitimate self-defence shooting. Nobody tried subduing him, there were plenty of opportunities where they could have but didn't, instead, they made ineffectual melee attacks, and one poorly strategized attack with a firearm.
Click to expand...

No, it's apples and apples

It was suggested that taking on a man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, was suicide

I'm saying that's absolutely not the case and that there are several examples of unarmed civilians subduing an active shooter (meaning not only did they have a gun, but were actively using it - which is EVEN more of a threat than the one Rittenhouse may have presented).
 
ASHES said:
He was not a prohibited person as defined in any straw purchase statute. Ownership of the gun never transferred to Rittenhouse and wasn't going to until he was 18. That is not a straw purchase.



It isn't. If Rittenhouse is found not guilty of violating 948.60 2a or it is dismissed, Black can not be guilty under 948.60 2b and the charges would have to be dismissed.
Click to expand...

You can bold that to the moon and back but it doesn't erase the charges against them both in relation to the weapon. We know Black was charged much later so don't you think the stellar dream team Rittenhouse had would have informed Black's attorney Blacks charges were invalid?

And no. The agreement Black spoke of was for Wendy Rittenhouse to take legal possession.

According to police reports, Black told investigators that Wendy Rittenhouse had been planning to apply for a firearm owner’s identification card in Illinois so they could legally keep the weapon in Antioch.
Click to expand...

apnews.com

Kenosha shooter's mother tries to deflect blame from her son

ANTIOCH, Ill. (AP) — The mother of an Illinois 17-year-old charged in the fatal shooting of two men during a protest in Wisconsin said neither her son nor the protesters should have been on the street that night and put much of the blame for what happened on police and the governor.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
SkyFox76 said:
You can bold that to the moon and back but it doesn't erase the charges against them both in relation to the weapon. We know Black was charged much later so don't you think the stellar dream team Rittenhouse had would have informed Black's attorney Blacks charges were invalid?

And no. The agreement Black spoke of was for Wendy Rittenhouse to take legal possession.



apnews.com

Kenosha shooter's mother tries to deflect blame from her son

ANTIOCH, Ill. (AP) — The mother of an Illinois 17-year-old charged in the fatal shooting of two men during a protest in Wisconsin said neither her son nor the protesters should have been on the street that night and put much of the blame for what happened on police and the governor.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
Whatever you want to call it, it wasn't an attempt to buy a firearm for a legally prohibited person. The charges against Black require Rittenhouse be convicted first. If Rittenhouse is not guilty of 948.60 2a, Black can't be guilty of 2b. That case will not proceed until whether or not Rittenhouse was in fact in violation of 948.60 2a is adjudicated, either by verdict or dismissal.
 
ASHES said:
It is possible for an initial aggressor to gain back the right to self defense. If they cease the offense, and the other person retaliates with unreasonable force, then they can use reasonable force to respond. I'm not talking about someone pulling out a gun and shooting because they're losing the fight. That would be like Drejka. If you ignore that he was the initial aggressor against his victim's girlfriend, and this guy just shoved him to the ground for no reason. He would be reasonable in displaying his firearm as he is on the ground and the man who knocked him down is approaching. However, the initial aggressor in this case ceases the fight at the display, puts up his hands and backs away. Then Drejka takes unjustifiably offensive actions, and at that point the initial aggressor is legally entitled to defend against that attack.


I've discussed all the relevant facts in this case ad nauseum. He is not guilty of 948.60, he is exempted from 948.60 2a by 948.60 3c. This will be settled at trial. It is irrelevant, as is his age, to the intentional homicide charges.

As for the alleged straw purchase, we discussed it at length dozens of pages ago. Neither of them has been nor will be charged with a straw purchase, because it wasn't. If they are at some point, it will be another not guilty verdict if it ever goes to trial.
Click to expand...
You continue to lie and deny facts, even when presented with irrefutable proof. Pathetic.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You continue to lie and deny facts, even when presented with irrefutable proof. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
In other words, you've got nothing substantive to refute my points.
 
ASHES said:
Whatever you want to call it, it wasn't an attempt to buy a firearm for a legally prohibited person. The charges against Black require Rittenhouse be convicted first. If Rittenhouse is not guilty of 948.60 2a, Black can't be guilty of 2b. That case will not proceed until whether or not Rittenhouse was in fact in violation of 948.60 2a is adjudicated, either by verdict or dismissal.
Click to expand...
No, Rittenhouse didn’t need to be convicted of anything.

Rittenhouse was a minor at the time he gave money to Black to buy the rifle for him. Minors cannot purchase firearms. That made Black’s purchase of the rifle a straw man purchase.

Holy ****, man, get a clue!
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I literally posted the related laws. What else do you need?!?
Click to expand...
So have I. We literally disagree. Your interpretation isn't magically better than mine because it's yours. Instead of insulting you, I just say we agree to disagree and we'll see who is right at trial.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No, Rittenhouse didn’t need to be convicted of anything.

Rittenhouse was a minor at the time he gave money to Black to buy the rifle for him. Minors cannot purchase firearms. That made Black’s purchase of the rifle a straw man purchase.

Holy ****, man, get a clue!
Click to expand...
Prohibited person has a specific meaning in the law. It does not include minors.
 
ASHES said:
So have I. We literally disagree. Your interpretation isn't magically better than mine because it's yours. Instead of insulting you, I just say we agree to disagree and we'll see who is right at trial.
Click to expand...
My “interpretation” is based on understanding English and being honest.
 
Rich2018 said:
Difficult ?

Rittenhouse had no business being there with a gun
The right to bear arms is the problem, as we saw, it can have fatal consequences



The number of black people shot dead by US police is proof enough

Add a gun to that black man and US police will shoot.
Click to expand...
Now you demonstrate to us that you are not aware of a constitutional right to assemble and bear arms
Which of those African-American men killed by the police did not fail to comply with the police command?
I am not aware of any instance in which the Deceased did not fail to comply with a police command
Offer an instance to prove I am in error
 
SkyFox76 said:
apnews.com

Kenosha shooter's mother tries to deflect blame from her son

ANTIOCH, Ill. (AP) — The mother of an Illinois 17-year-old charged in the fatal shooting of two men during a protest in Wisconsin said neither her son nor the protesters should have been on the street that night and put much of the blame for what happened on police and the governor.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

"According to police reports, Black told investigators that Wendy Rittenhouse had been planning to apply for a firearm owner’s identification card in Illinois so they could legally keep the weapon in Antioch. "

So she was "planning" on doing it.
 
Rich2018 said:
It'll give asshole license to confront any protest they disagree with, with a loaded rifle

For the sake of civilization in the USA, Rittenhouse HAS to be convicted.
Click to expand...
Conviction should only be based on the presence of guilt
Civilizations future has nothing to do with it
The only way Rittenhouse gets convicted is if he has the worlds worst lawyer representing him
 
Rich2018 said:
"According to police reports, Black told investigators that Wendy Rittenhouse had been planning to apply for a firearm owner’s identification card in Illinois so they could legally keep the weapon in Antioch. "

So she was "planning" on doing it.
Click to expand...

I've really questioned that whole thing from the start. I'd lay good odds that K Rittenhouse fed that line to Black in order to convince Black to buy the weapon. Enough time had passed that she could have began the process and I don't believe she's ever said that was a plan she was aware of. Added it's not like Rittenhouse and Black were long time best buddies. They'd only met a year back when Black started dating his sister. He's probably wishing he'd never met that family now.
 
justabubba said:
Conviction should only be based on the presence of guilt
Civilizations future has nothing to do with it
The only way Rittenhouse gets convicted is if he has the worlds worst lawyer representing him
Click to expand...

Civilization has a lot to do with it, and Rittenhouse is getting convicted.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I've really questioned that whole thing from the start. I'd lay good odds that K Rittenhouse fed that line to Black in order to convince Black to buy the weapon. Enough time had passed that she could have began the process and I don't believe she's ever said that was a plan she was aware of. Added it's not like Rittenhouse and Black were long time best buddies. They'd only met a year back when Black started dating his sister. He's probably wishing he'd never met that family now.
Click to expand...

Black's in the s**t too

This is one of several high profile cases I will be paying close attention to.
 
Rich2018 said:
Black's in the s**t too

This is one of several high profile cases I will be paying close attention to.
Click to expand...

Yeah he is and that's what amazes me. I sure as hell wouldn't be risking a felony or ANY person I'd only known for a year.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Yeah he is and that's what amazes me. I sure as hell wouldn't be risking a felony or ANY person I'd only known for a year.
Click to expand...


Odds are it never crossed his mind that he might be breaking the law and serve time for it.
 
Rich2018 said:
Odds are it never crossed his mind that he might be breaking the law and serve time for it.
Click to expand...

I doubt he thought either of them would end up shooting anyone, but he obviously knew prior to and after that, that with buying the gun it wasn't suppose to be used anywhere but his dads property, due to Rittenhouse's age, and after the fact, that he would go down for Kyle having the weapon to begin with. Which he in fact told Rittenhouse.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I am not defending Rittenhouse. Never have. Never will.

He had no business being there that night. He had no legal right to be there with a firearm.

I do believe however, based on everything I’ve read and seen in videos, that Rittenhouse was genuinely afraid, possibly that he might be gravely injured or killed, and acted on that belief.

I don’t believe Rittenhouse’s terrible choices that put him in that situation should excuse, or even mitigate his actions. I sincerely hope the jury finds him guilty of all charges and sends him to prison for decades.
Click to expand...
Well.. there is the issue. Possibly.

You cannot make yourself a deadly threat..like pointing a gun at people.. and then when they DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM A DEADLY THREAT...then kill them.
Think about that... every criminal would get off.. "well yes I pointed my weapon at them told them I was going to kill them.. but when they resisted and tried to stop me I had to shoot them in self defense".

Rittenhouse will likely get off because all it will take is one nincompoop on the jury to sympathize with the young white kid.. and figure the "child molester" and whatever other dirt the defense can get on the other victims.. deserved it.
 
ASHES said:
He was never actively shooting. He shot one person after retreating proved insufficient to avoid conflict, then stopped an imminent threat of bodily harm/forcible felony from being committed on him, then attempted again to retreat from confrontation. At no time did he shoot indiscriminately, or in any manner that could be described as an "active shooter."
Click to expand...
You cannot simply shoot to "avoid conflict".

You can only shoot someone if you reasonable believe you are in imminent danger of death and grave bodily harm. Being followed while being yelled at.. is not imminent danger or grave bodily harm.
AND on top of that.. you cannot be the person that is the deadly threat. You cannot be the one that has caused others to defend themselves with deadly force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom