[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Honestly, I'm disappointed - I expected better from each of you. You are all focusing on the last attacker who had a gun. Who cares?

If the first killing was justified, then so was the rest, because they had a skateboard and a gun.

However, the first had NEITHER. You guys should know better. It all hinged on the first, if the first was good, the rest was righteous. But the mentally unhinged first one there, he didn't have a gun. And Rittenhouse was running from him, yes...but then it was between cars, can't really see, gunfire in distance, etc...is it good or not? We don't know, but some of the evidence that came out was VERY INTERESTING. Like him having his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot. That to me, along wiht other things that came out that we didn't know about initially from the MSM, suggests Rittenhouse got it right.

But there was no firearm pointed at him in the first one or the second, so let's not go down that path. Its a non starter. Rittenhouse was the first one on scene with a prominently displayed firearm out of all the people who were killed / injured. Full stop.

This was an extremely interesting case, and I'm happy with the conclusion, but bucketfoot has a valid question.

We didn't insinuate his question was invalid. Nobody attacked him. We just presented the facts.

P.S. Rittenhouse presented himself with a firearm…..

…in an environment full of unrest, people looting, shooting, assaulting people, burning structures and cars, etc. IMHO, he would've been an idiot to go out there WITHOUT a firearm. His rifle was a show a force (…much like an unruly crowd). It was not actual force……until he was attacked.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

We didn't insinuate his question was invalid. Nobody attacked him. We just presented the facts.

P.S. Rittenhouse presented himself with a firearm…..

…in an environment full of unrest, people looting, shooting, assaulting people, burning structures and cars, etc. IMHO, he would've been an idiot to go out there WITHOUT a firearm. His rifle was a show a force (…much like an unruly crowd). It was not actual force……until he was attacked.

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

And I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question whether Rittenhouse, who indeed pointed first, caused the altercation

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

You need to align your timeline with the facts.

Rittenhouse was leaving the area BEFORE any rounds were fired. Rosenbaum and the mob chased Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum lunged at him and grabbed the rifle. It was at that point he was fatally shot. Huber was shot after he was hitting Rittenhouse and tried to take the rifle. Again, justified self defense. Grosskreutz was armed, pointed a gun at Rittenhouse AND tried to grab the rifle BEFORE he was shot. All three lost the criminal lottery.

TL;DR - No, Rittenhouse didn't point the rifle AT ANYBODY until they assaulted him. This is supported by CLEAR/HIGH QUALITY video footage.

[bucketfoot]

I'm good with all of this. That said my question still remains.

If you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused by doing so, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created?

I know this is a hypothetical circumstance and every case is different, but it is also very much a real world situation. Thus I'm interested in your take on this.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

I'm good with all of this. That said my question still remains.

If you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused by doing so, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created?

I know this is a hypothetical circumstance and every case is different, but it is also very much a real world situation. Thus I'm interested in your take on this.

If you point a gun at someone for any reason OTHER THAN self-defense, you are guilty of nothing less than brandishing a deadly weapon (..417 P.C. in California)……but most likely assault with a deadly weapon [firearm] (…245(a)(4) P.C. in California). Both are felonies.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by Onesie

At some point people will have to start asking themselves "why is the media pushing a version of a story?"

call me jaded, but i doubt that will happen.
i recall a passage from Groucho Marx's autobiography where he mentions the media slant on a performance painting him as the bad guy - and that was back in the 40's...

[F30lolz]

Sedan_Clan, do you have the forum authority to stop this clown posting the same random ‘where is admin blah blah blah’ crap?

Also, have any motorists have the balls to honk at you? Say light turns green and you delayed pressing on the gas and Speedy Gonzalez let’s it known….

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by F30lolz

Sedan_Clan, do you have the forum authority to stop this clown posting the same random 'where is admin blah blah blah' crap?

Also, have any motorists have the balls to honk at you? Say light turns green and you delayed pressing on the gas and Speedy Gonzalez let's it known….

I'm not a mod here so I have zero authority.

I haven't had anybody honk at me, but if a motorist did have the balls to actually do it, I would either laugh or pull them over for the improper/non-emergency use of a horn (….27001(a) CVC)……just to check them out. I wouldn't cite for it 99% of the time though.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

Here is an excellent article that covers the facts vs the media rhetoric and why so many seem to be confused.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...le-rittenhouse

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

And I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question whether Rittenhouse, who indeed pointed first, caused the altercation

There was testimony by witnesses and the defendant that earlier in the evening Rosenbaum threatened to kill them and cut out their hearts. There was testimony that Rosenbaum had a chain and other unknown items in a bag. Then later, Rosenbaum chased the defendant into a car lot where the defendant was cornered and feared for his life (his testimony an numerous video evidence). Finally, Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the gun (no one knows his intention when grabbing the gun, only speculation can be made), the defendant defended himself and ended the threat (or perceived threat). The state obviously failed to prove the elements of the allegations and charged crime, even the lesser charges that they (Wisconsin) introduced at the end of the trial.

[vanguard8]

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

The only testimony that was given, is the aforementioned in the above post. Anything else would be speculation.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

The only one who could answer that is Rosenbaum.

[Pablo Chacon]

Regardless, the defendant in Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse was acquitted with prejudice. That’s all that really matters.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

The only testimony that was given, is the aforementioned in the above post. Anything else would be speculation.

One would think there was a reason, and that there would be some witness to how the two became antagonistic. I can only assume that no witness was willing to come forward.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Regardless, the defendant in Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse was acquitted with prejudice. That’s all that really matters.

That might be all that matters for Rittenhouse & his fate, but this case will be picked over for some time. I hope we can learn something from it.

[Pablo Chacon]

There were witnesses that testified to his behavior and threatening to kill the defendant and others in the group with the defendant. There was video evidence of Rosenbaum’s erratic & hostile behavior shortly before he chased and cornered the defendant in the car lot.

Rosenbaum was just released from a mental health treatment facility or hospital earlier that day.
So, the only facts the jurors heard and seen must have left reasonable doubt.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

That might be all that matters for Rittenhouse & his fate, but this case will be picked over for some time. I hope we can learn something from it.

Picking over a case will do nothing. I don’t know if there is much to learn from the case that most rationale people don’t already know.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

There were witnesses that testified to his behavior and threatening to kill the defendant and others in the group with the defendant. There was video evidence of Rosenbaum’s erratic & hostile behavior shortly before he chased and cornered the defendant in the car lot.

Rosenbaum was just released from a mental health treatment facility or hospital earlier that day.
So, the only facts the jurors heard and seen must have left reasonable doubt.

Thanks. It does seem Rosenbaum was someone who didn't need much of a reason.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Picking over a case will do nothing. I don’t know if there is much to learn from the case that most rationale people don’t already know.

The picking has begun, and this was written before the verdict. May the learning follow.

"After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him."
"And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide."

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

One would think there was a reason, and that there would be some witness to how the two became antagonistic. I can only assume that no witness was willing to come forward.

They were out there to be violent, incite violence and commit a crime (…or crimes). Their criminal histories tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about those three men. Only career criminals or people with a propensity to commit criminals acts find themselves at riots. Generally speaking, law abiding citizens don't go out and damage other people's property and commit acts that purposely hurt others. Kenosha will never recover from the damage caused during the riots. The people of that city are disenfranchised forever.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

The picking has begun, and this was written before the verdict. May the learning follow.

"After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him."
"And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide."

I didn’t say it wouldn’t occur, I stated it wouldn’t do anything, as in it won’t be beneficial or change anything.
The rest is all just noise.
2A and self defense prevailed, next up, the trial in Georgia should be wrapping up next week.