• 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 may be self defense

Yes we could save cute little toddlers if we slow down. That is basic physics. You can’t deny reality.

But we do have speed limits. So gun limits are fine.
 
If the defense can prove that the guy shot had been a rioter/looter, and that he attacked the kid, it could be a major mitigating factor for self defense.

Except there wasn’t any riot nor looting when Rittenhouse gunned down his first unarmed victim.
 
As already noted, we could lower them, we choose not to knowing more cute toddlers will die. You are deflecting.

You’re comparing speed limits to guns. You’ve been pre-deflecting.
 
Except there wasn’t any riot nor looting when Rittenhouse gunned down his first unarmed victim.

According to some reports, they were trying to set a dumpster on fire and the kid put it out. This is supposedly the reason the first guy attacked the kid. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, I guess there is not video of it. If it can be corroborated, it makes for a pretty good argument for self defense.
 
According to some reports, they were trying to set a dumpster on fire and the kid put it out. This is supposedly the reason the first guy attacked the kid. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, I guess there is not video of it. If it can be corroborated, it makes for a pretty good argument for self defense.

There has not been any video to corroborate that scenario.
 
No **** there’s probable cause. All of Rittenhouse’s actions show he was willing to fire in the direction of people he was to help and protect.

The only part of the comment above supported by the facts is PC exists.

There are no facts to support the notion “he was willing to fire in the direction of people he was to help and protect.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rittenhouse claimed and you can see his medical kit with him. When he doubled back and stared at his victim he decide to take out his cellphone and make a call.
This kid was not there to help or protect anyone and his actions show that over and over again.

Irrelevant. The issue isn’t whether he was “there to help or protect anyone.”

But I’ll contest your claim “his actions show” he “was not there to help or protect anyone.”

His actions do not make such a showing but go ahead, illuminate the conduct by Rittenhouse that you think makes such a showing and why, and more importantly, how that relates at all to the criminal charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We know that he was illegally possessing a gun at the time. He chose as a minor to illegally take a gun to a protest. At least it's criminal negligence or manslaughter

Well that’s the issue. Is it reckless homicide in count one?

The defense will argue it isn’t at all. The defense will argue but for being chased by Rosenbaum, but for Rosenbaum throwing an object at Rittenhouse, but for reaching for Rittenhouse’s firearm, Rosenbaum would not have been shot. That doesn’t wreak of reckless homicide.

Oh, but you say, he brought a firearm. Yes, however, the act of being armed is not ipso facto reckless conduct. Especially since soooo many ar this forum have been bloviating about the fact other armed people never fired their weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The only part of the comment above supported by the facts is PC exists.

There are no facts to support the notion “he was willing to fire in the direction of people he was to help and protect.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 dead and one wounded do.
 
Citation for your claim?

The question was: How is the Australian gun ban working? Last time I checked there are more illegal guns than before the ban.

My question to you is where is the proof, that there is more guns in Aus now than after the ban. It's impossible. 1 million guns , were handed in. That includes the second amnesty. Only 25 million people live in Australia. Where are these guns coming from. Are they falling from heaven?
 
Tragic. Accidents happen. Car accidents kill vastly more than that.

85 kids dead so far this year because they found there parents gun. Know big deal' only countless generations of families have been wiped off the map. My Great Great grandma produced 57 human beings. If she was killed by a stray bullet, those 57 people would not exist. And the children they produced would not exist. (lets say they had 3 kids per family) That's 171 people killed by one bullet. (one death) You people need to do some math. Your so involved with the **** second amendment. It was created in case of invasion. Guess what? invasion is not imminent. You Dummies.
 
I think you guys might be a little bit coco. Sorry, i mean, cuckoo.
 
It’s
85 kids dead so far this year because they found there parents gun. Know big deal' only countless generations of families have been wiped off the map. My Great Great grandma produced 57 human beings. If she was killed by a stray bullet, those 57 people would not exist. And the children they produced would not exist. (lets say they had 3 kids per family) That's 171 people killed by one bullet. (one death) You people need to do some math. Your so involved with the **** second amendment. It was created in case of invasion. Guess what? invasion is not imminent. You Dummies.

Tragic. Accidents happen. Car accidents kill vastly more than that.
 
Tragic. Accidents happen. Car accidents kill vastly more than that.

Do you guys have mandatory pool fencing nation wide. My guess is you dont. Just more preventable deaths of children that you turn a blind eye to. Very clever you are.
 
Do you guys have mandatory pool fencing nation wide. My guess is you dont. Just more preventable deaths of children that you turn a blind eye to. Very clever you are.

You turn a blind eye to freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom