Rittenhouse trial…

@wildgrass said
Yes of course you do. If you're trying to help in a bad situation but you escalate violence, you still made a dumb decision because you made things worse. This is what responsible gun owners are taught before they hold a gun.

Kyle didn't escalate the violence. His attackers did.

@wildgrass said
Of course, other dumb decisions besides what we're talking about also exist. That's just not what we're discussing in this thread.

these decisions I mentioned are the reason for this thread

@sh76 said
I don't like that people are calling him a hero. He's not a hero. He's a regular kid/young man who showed poor judgment in putting himself in a tough situation, but for which he had every right to do (possibly carrying the gun was illegal, but the statute contradicted itself on that).

He had no choice but to shoot in self-defense and for that he was correctly exonerated. But ...[text shortened]... I fully expect that Rittenhouse himself won't be showing up to protests with an AR-15 in the future.

"(possibly carrying the gun was illegal, but the statute contradicted itself on that).'

are you claiming the judge ruled in error?

what qualifies you to overrule a sitting judge?

@mott-the-hoople said
"(possibly carrying the gun was illegal, but the statute contradicted itself on that).'

are you claiming the judge ruled in error?

what qualifies you to overrule a sitting judge?

No; I think the judge was correct. The statute was poorly worded. I think it was probably meant to make it illegal for a 17 year old to carry a gun in a non-hunting context, but they messed up in drafting the statute and so the count had to be dismissed.

@sh76 said
No; I think the judge was correct. The statute was poorly worded. I think it was probably meant to make it illegal for a 17 year old to carry a gun in a non-hunting context, but they messed up in drafting the statute and so the count had to be dismissed.

but you stated "possibly carrying the firearm was illegal"

if the statute didnt specifically make it illegal, then it was legal , poorly worded or not. you are trying to mind read here

@mott-the-hoople said
but you stated "possibly carrying the firearm was illegal"

if the statute didnt specifically make it illegal, then it was legal , poorly worded or not. you are trying to mind read here

The statute did make it illegal... and then kinda contradicted itself.

Hence, "possibly," but "possibly" is not enough to convict.

@sleepyguy said
Kyle didn't escalate the violence. His attackers did.

I'm curious; perhaps that claim is defensible regarding Rosenbaum but how does it apply to Huber and Grosskreutz? Someone had already been shot and killed; how did their actions "escalate the violence"?

@no1marauder said
I'm curious; perhaps that claim is defensible regarding Rosenbaum but how does it apply to Huber and Grosskreutz? Someone had already been shot and killed; how did their actions "escalate the violence"?

They attacked him. He was trying to run away from them.
One bashed him in the head with a skateboard and another pulled a gun on him while he was on his back on the ground.
Did you watch the trial at all?

@no1marauder said
I'm curious; perhaps that claim is defensible regarding Rosenbaum but how does it apply to Huber and Grosskreutz? Someone had already been shot and killed; how did their actions "escalate the violence"?

After Rosenbaum, Kyle was retreating. The violence could have been over, but Huber bashed him with a skateboard and Freeland went to kick him in the head, forcing a self defense response. It could have been over right then, but Huber smashed him again and tried to take the gun, forcing a response. And it could have been over right then. When Grosskreutz came up with his hands up Rittenhouse didn't shoot him, and it could have been over right then, but Grosskreutz decided to point his gun, forcing a response. Why is this hard?

@dood111 said
They attacked him. He was trying to run away from them.
One bashed him in the head with a skateboard and another pulled a gun on him while he was on his back on the ground.
Did you watch the trial at all?

Yes, I did.

He had already killed someone; how did using non-lethal force against a fleeing killer "escalate the violence"?

As shown in the prosecutor's summation using the drone footage. Grosskreutz had ample opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse well before the latter shot him, yet he did not.

@sleepyguy said
After Rosenbaum, Kyle was retreating. The violence could have been over, but Huber bashed him with a skateboard and Freeland went to kick him in the head, forcing a self defense response. It could have been over right then, but Huber smashed him again and tried to take the gun, forcing a response. And it could have been over right then. When Grosskreutz came up with his han ...[text shortened]... een over right then, but Grosskreutz decided to point his gun, forcing a response. Why is this hard?

It's hard because you don't seem to understand what the word "escalate" means.

I realize you are promulgating the right wing fairy tale of "Rittenhouse as choirboy" but that is not how a reasonable person seeing this person fleeing the scene of a killing would have imagined him to be.

And Grosskreutz had plenty of opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse but didn't.

@no1marauder said
It's hard because you don't seem to understand what the word "escalate" means.

I realize you are promulgating the right wing fairy tale of "Rittenhouse as choirboy" but that is not how a reasonable person seeing this person fleeing the scene of a killing would have imagined him to be.

And Grosskreutz had plenty of opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse but didn't.

If Freeland, Huber and Grosskreutz all perceived Rittenhouse as an "active shooter" or whatever, it is irrelevant because they had made a wrong assumption. They acted on their wrong assumption to attack someone who was no threat to them. Rittenhouse rightly perceived they were unjustly trying to harm him and defended himself, which he had a right to do.

Grosskreutz not shooting him earlier is also not relevant. When he did try to shoot, Rittenhouse rightly defended himself.

@sleepyguy said
If Freeland, Huber and Grosskreutz all perceived Rittenhouse as an "active shooter" or whatever, it is irrelevant because they had made a wrong assumption. They acted on their wrong assumption to attack someone who was no threat to them. Rittenhouse rightly perceived they were unjustly trying to harm him and defended himself, which he had a right to do.

Grosskreutz not s ...[text shortened]... ng him earlier is also not relevant. When he did try to shoot, Rittenhouse rightly defended himself.

How is it "irrelevant" to your claim they "escalated the violence"?

Suppose Huber was a police officer with a baton rather than a civilian with a skateboard. If he had attempted to use non-lethal force to disarm this killer, would he have been "escalating the violence"?

@no1marauder said
How is it "irrelevant" to your claim they "escalated the violence"?

Suppose Huber was a police officer with a baton rather than a civilian with a skateboard. If he had attempted to use non-lethal force to disarm this killer, would he have been "escalating the violence"?

Rittenhouse never shot at a single person who was not attacking him. He was a victim of an ambush and an attack, was never the aggressor, and he was running away. Swinging a skateboard at someone's head when they are just trying to get the hell away from you escalates the violence from a level of zero to a potentially deadly assault .

@sleepyguy said
Rittenhouse never shot at a single person who was not attacking him. He was a victim of an ambush and an attack, was never the aggressor, and he was running away. Swinging a skateboard at someone's head when they are just trying to get the hell away from you escalates the violence from a level of zero to a potentially deadly assault .

He had already killed someone; how is trying to disarm him by use of non-lethal force "escalating the violence"?

Rittenhouse may have been reasonably said to have "escalated the violence" by bringing a rifle with a 30 shot mag with an expressed intent to shoot "looters".

I note you ignored my hypothetical; smart if a bit cowardly.