Rittenhouse trial WOW!

[jaeger19]

Being assaulted is good enough.

And Mr. Brainiac Rosenbaum was chasing him...for what ? A kiss ?

No..assault isn't enough.
It must be reasonable imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse so he could continue to yell at him. Which is what he had been doing prior to Rittenhouse running.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Um No. Rittenhouse was never the subject of an explicit, and imminent death threat by anyone.
Which is what the law requires for self defense.confirmed.

Yes on both. Rosenbaum issued a death threat to the group that Kyle was in. Again, confirmed by witness testimony at the trial.

You don't nessicarily need a verbal death threat to use deadly force. Illegal attempt at taking a firearm would be enough to use deadly force.

 

[TurtleDude]

No..assault isn't enough.
It must be reasonable imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse so he could continue to yell at him. Which is what he had been doing prior to Rittenhouse running.

Rosenbaum was properly wasted for creating a reasonable fear in Rittenhouse that the chester wanted to harm him. Good shoot

 

[TurtleDude]

Um No. Rittenhouse was never the subject of an explicit, and imminent death threat by anyone.
Which is what the law requires for self defense.

You are not correct in either the law or the facts

 

[jaeger19]

Don't bring a skateboard to a gun fight.

Who was chasing who through the parking lot before he got his balls shot off ?

Who was chasing who when he got his arm shot to crap ?

I don't recall K.R. chasing anyone.

So why don't you quite being so blatantly close minded.

That's right. Rittenhouse brought a gun to a gun fight.
The other brought a skateboard...
So who do you thinked planned a gun fight????
Right.. who came armed with a deadly weapon and pointed it at rosenbaum??Rosenbaum???
But I am supposed to believe that the unarmed man represents an imminent deadly threat..
But meanwhile a man armed with a rifle and pointing it at a person doesn't represent a deadly threat.
A man with a skateboard represents a deadly threat...
But a man with a rifle who just shot an unarmed man and is running down the street isn't.
Yeah..and you think I am the one closed minded.

 

[jaeger19]

Rosenbaum was properly wasted for creating a reasonable fear in Rittenhouse that the chester wanted to harm him. Good shoot

Bull pucker.
There is absolutely no evidence that any reasonable person would see that Rosenbaum represented sn imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death to Rittenhouse.
Meanwhile the reverse is obvious.
You get in an argument with a fellow and he pulls a gun and puts it in your face..
Who represents the imminent deadly threat. ?

 

[jaeger19]

You are not correct in either the law or the facts

I am absolutely correct in thd law and in the facts.
But you are free to prove me wrong. Let's see it.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Was there a real threat of "great bodily harm" ?

Answer: No there wasn't.

Yes there was. Rosenbaum issued a death threat to Kyle and members of his group. In which he then chase Kyle down to attempt to take his gun. Imminent threat, which Rosenbaulm issues a death threat prior. Good shoot.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am absolutely correct in thd law and in the facts.
But you are free to prove me wrong. Let's see it.

you are wrong-all that the user of deadly force need establish is a reasonable belief of severe bodily harm if he didn't shoot. Tell us what exactly your agenda is to continue to misstate the law of self defense along the line that we see from leftwing anti gun advocates?

 

[jaeger19]

Yes there was. Rosenbaum issued a death threat to Kyle and members of his group. In which he then chase Kyle down to attempt to take his gun. Imminent threat, which Rosenbaulm issues a death threat prior. Good shoot.

There was no explicit death threat to Rittenhouse. No imminent danger.
And he only attempted to get his hands on the rifle when IT WAS POINTED AT HIM.
Not before when he had multiple chances to try. Nor did he strike or grab .Rittenhouse.. instead yelled at him and threw a plastic bag at rittenhouse..
Oh the horror.
Come now..stop being silly.

 

[TurtleDude]

There was no explicit death threat to Rittenhouse. No imminent danger.
And he only attempted to get his hands on the rifle when IT WAS POINTED AT HIM.
Not before when he had multiple chances to try. Nor did he strike or grab .Rittenhouse.. instead yelled at him and threw a plastic bag at rittenhouse..
Oh the horror.
Come now..stop being silly.

Your attempt to relitigate a trial that you apparently believe you lost is pathetic. The jury did the right thing. And I doubt you have an professional experience in litigating self defense cases.

 

[Rich2018]

The trial is the evidence. Did you even watch it?

The complete lack of any physical evidence, video evidence, or witness testimony indicating his actions didn't constitute legal self defense, completely backs up my beliefs... Please point out the witness testimony, or any one of the dozen videos presented at trial, that you believe constitutes proof that Rittenhouse was guilty of murder.

Are you saying that the prosecution offered no evidence ?

 

[jaeger19]

you are wrong-all that the user of deadly force need establish is a reasonable belief of severe bodily harm if he didn't shoot. Tell us what exactly your agenda is to continue to misstate the law of self defense along the line that we see from leftwing anti gun advocates?

Yes.. a reasonable belief that his life was in imminent threat.
Rosenbaum had a loaded rifle pointed at him. That gives him a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm and he was justified in trying to divert the rifle.
Rittenhouse had been yelled at snd had a plastic bag thrown at him.
Explain how a rifle pointed at you doesn't constitute a deadly threat..
While being yelled at and having a plastic bag thrown at you does.
Let's hear your logic counselor.
The only one who doesn't understand the law here is you counselor. You believe that deadly force is justified based on which person you identify with.
I am quite certain that if Rittenhouse had been black and a member of blm..
And Rosenbaum had been a wealthy business owner.angry at blm protestors and arguing with them. ..
You would be calling for the " mope" Rittenhouse facing charges for manslaughter.

 

[jaeger19]

Your attempt to relitigate a trial that you apparently believe you lost is pathetic. The jury did the right thing. And I doubt you have an professional experience in litigating self defense cases.

Your attempt to divert from the law and the facts ard what's pathetic.
The jury did the wrong thing.. they let Rittenhouse get away with manslaughter because he was more sympathetic to them than the actual victims.

 

[RF667799]

So you basically just admitted that your mere presence isn't a deterrent.
So how did Rittenhouse plan to protect private property?

No, I made no such statement. I said if my presence isn't a deterrent, then the gun is available to protect me. It's really no different than the basic reason law enforcement carry guns.

 

[Grim17]

Um no. Rittenhouse pointed the rifle at Rosenbaum. Which meant that Rittenhouse represented the imminent deadly threat and Rosenbaum was justified legally in attempting to divert the rifle and using deadly force.

Nope... You're wrong, just as the unanimous jury determined.

 

[Grim17]

Are you saying that the prosecution offered no evidence ?

Did you watch the trial or not?

.

 

[jaeger19]

No, I made no such statement. I said if my presence isn't a deterrent, then the gun is available to protect me. It's really no different than the basic reason law enforcement carry guns.

Well you just pointed out your presence would not be a deterrent.
So how would Rittenhouse protect private property. ?

 

[jaeger19]

Nope... You're wrong, just as the unanimous jury determined.

Well you are free to point out any errors I have made in the law or the facts of the case.
Good luck.

 

[Grim17]

Well you are free to point out any errors I have made in the law or the facts of the case.
Good luck.

It's simple... For some unknown reason you are claiming Rittenhouse was the aggressor when he clearly wasn't... You are also claiming that his actions did not meet the standard for legal self defense, to which a unanimous determined that they did.

Those are your errors.

 

[RF667799]

Yes.. a reasonable belief that his life was in imminent threat.
Rosenbaum had a loaded rifle pointed at him. That gives him a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm and he was justified in trying to divert the rifle.
Rittenhouse had been yelled at snd had a plastic bag thrown at him.
Explain how a rifle pointed at you doesn't constitute a deadly threat..
While being yelled at and having a plastic bag thrown at you does.
Let's hear your logic counselor.
The only one who doesn't understand the law here is you counselor. You believe that deadly force is justified based on which person you identify with.
I am quite certain that if Rittenhouse had been black and a member of blm..
And Rosenbaum had been a wealthy business owner.angry at blm protestors and arguing with them. ..
You would be calling for the " mope" Rittenhouse facing charges for manslaughter.

Rosenbaum wasn't simply arguing with KR. He was actively pursuing KR, who was actively running away. If you make someone fearful enough to run away from you, then you have already put that person in a state of fear. If you then pursue that person, you are verifying their apprehension was correct.

Back to my example, if I surprise a would-be burglar, he's not intimidated, and I take off running for my house instead of defending myself at that moment. If he pursues me and I turn to see him almost on top of me, I would be on about as solid self defense ground there is. I satisfied a duty to retreat.

 

[RF667799]

Well you just pointed out your presence would not be a deterrent.
So how would Rittenhouse protect private property. ?

I absolutely did not.

I said, "If my presence is not a deterrent..."

 

[Linuxcooldude]

There was no explicit death threat to Rittenhouse. No imminent danger.
And he only attempted to get his hands on the rifle when IT WAS POINTED AT HIM.
Not before when he had multiple chances to try. Nor did he strike or grab .Rittenhouse.. instead yelled at him and threw a plastic bag at rittenhouse..
Oh the horror.
Come now..stop being silly.

Wrong and wrong again.

Death threat by Rosenbalm to Kyle and members in his group:

He testified that while Balch ( Edit, probably a typo, should be Rosenbalm not Balch) was trying to set the fire, he had threatened Balch and another man within Rittenhouse's hearing, saying, "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f---ing kill you!”

As testified by Rich McGinnis, a news reporter, who also witnessed the shooting of Rosenbalm:

McGinnis added that he saw Rittenhouse turn around toward Rosenbaum, and that the victim was "lunging" for the front portion of the rifle, which was aimed at roughly 45 degrees toward the ground.

So the gun wasn't pointed at Rosenbalm, until he actually tried to reach for it.

Witnesses testify shooting victim made death threats, lunged for Rittenhouse’s gun

Two witnesses in the trial over Kyle Rittenhouse’s fatal shooting of three men during Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha, Wis.c last year said that the first victim threatened Ritten…

thehill.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

No..assault isn't enough.
It must be reasonable imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse so he could continue to yell at him. Which is what he had been doing prior to Rittenhouse running.

This is hysterical.

Good thing the jury had more sense than you.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Well you are free to point out any errors I have made in the law or the facts of the case.
Good luck.

Not guilty.