Stop blaming BLM

@philokalia said
(1) Illegally pointing a gun at someone can still be a crime.

But charging someone who has a gun illegally pointed on you is, and always will be, a Darwin award, no matter how "legal" or "illegal" the situation is.

(2) Kyle did nothing wrong. Wisconsin is an open carry state. He was defending property from rioting thugs.

Gunshots happen...

A rioter charges ...[text shortened]... rmed with a gun (as many in this mob are wont to be), and they both get shot.

Where's the crime?

Maybe you should read the charging instrument and not just play like you have enough information or training to make legal decisions.

There's exactly zero evidence that anybody he pointed his gun at was "rioting" when he did so.

@philokalia said
Oh yes, if Hempe was being violently accosted by a mob trying to stop him, he has every reason to fear for his life if there is deadly force in play.

He has no obligation to stop or not defend himself.

There's a reason why police identify themselves (and are easily identifiable) and give verbal commands -- drop the weapon, hands up, etc., because these start a proc ...[text shortened]... t an officer of the law? Especially if I am from the same mob of people that may be a menace to him.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. Private citizens in every State in the Union can arrest suspected offenders in certain circumstances esp. when the offense is a violent felony. Here's the law in my State:

A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:

(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

N.Y. Penal Law §35.30(4) :

The rule in Wisconsin is pretty simple:

"Wisconsin doesn’t actually have a specific statute regarding citizen’s arrests, but such arrests are covered by common law or judge-made law. Those laws allow citizens to make arrests under one of two conditions.

The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony. An example would be if you are standing outside a bank and someone with a mask comes out of the building with a bag of money. That gives you enough reason to believe that the person committed a felony."

https://www.johnsflaherty.com/blog/how-to-perform-a-citizens-arrest-and-why-its-best-not-to

Thus, the persons trying to disarm and detain Rittenhouse after the first shooting were clearly authorized to do so by Wisconsin law and his deadly resistance is unlikely to be found justifiable under the circumstances.

It is strange that you believe Rittenhouse was legally authorized to use deadly force to protect property (he wasn't) but that citizens were not legally allowed to detain him after he killed someone (they are).

@no1marauder said
Maybe you should read the charging instrument and not just play like you have enough information or training to make legal decisions.

There's exactly zero evidence that anybody he pointed his gun at was "rioting" when he did so.

(1) The crowd was out past curfew with designs to burn down cars and/or a mechanic shop in the area; hence the car burning after the event, and the lots of cars burnt down the night before.

(2) Riot could be defined many ways, but this is acutally irrelevant, since all video shows it was done in self-defense.

@no1marauder said
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. Private citizens in every State in the Union can arrest suspected offenders in certain circumstances esp. when the offense is a violent felony. Here's the law in my State:

A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the e ...[text shortened]... wasn't) but that citizens were not legally allowed to detain him after he killed someone (they are).

(1) They can. But should they?

Utterly irrelevant.

(2)

Thus, the persons trying to disarm and detain Rittenhouse after the first shooting were clearly authorized to do so by Wisconsin law and his deadly resistance is unlikely to be found justifiable under the circumstances.

(a) What felony did Rosenbaum believe he committed when he attacked him?

(b) Rittenhouse should have believed that Huber & Grosskreuz (Grosskreuz who later stated that his only regret was not emptying his magazine into Rittenhouse) were simply there to perform a citizens arrest, and that he would have been treated fairly by the violent mob attacking him?

Where does it say that in duh law?

It is strange that you believe Rittenhouse was legally authorized to use deadly force to protect property (he wasn't) but that citizens were not legally allowed to detain him after he killed someone (they are).

Rittenhouse is authorized to use lethal force to defend himself from those attacking him.

@philokalia said
(1) They can. But should they?

Utterly irrelevant.

(2)

Thus, the persons trying to disarm and detain Rittenhouse after the first shooting were clearly authorized to do so by Wisconsin law and his deadly resistance is unlikely to be found justifiable under the circumstances.

(a) What felony did Rosenbaum believe he committed when he attacked hi ...[text shortened]... /quote]

Rittenhouse is authorized to use lethal force to defend himself from those attacking him.

First, you make a lot of conclusions based on almost zero evidence. Most of it is simple propaganda that you are regurgitating.

Your final sentence is absolutely incorrect; even IF Rosenbaum was "attacking" Rittenhouse (of which there isn't any evidence) that in and of itself doesn't allow Rittenhouse to use lethal force. This has been explained to you and other right wingers repeatedly here.

EDIT: One more time specifically referring to Wisconsin law:

" Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person. "

https://www.grgblaw.com/wisconsin-trial-lawyers/wisconsin-self-defense-rule#:~:text=Wisconsin%20law%20allows%20deadly%20force,bodily%20harm%E2%80%9D%20to%20their%20person.

So, no, merely being in some sort of altercation does not allow one to use deadly force. And your subjective beliefs are not enough; any belief that lethal force force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm must be objectively "reasonable".

Where is the evidence that Rosenbaum posed such a threat to Rittenhouse?

@philokalia said
(1) The crowd was out past curfew with designs to burn down cars and/or a mechanic shop in the area; hence the car burning after the event, and the lots of cars burnt down the night before.

(2) Riot could be defined many ways, but this is acutally irrelevant, since all video shows it was done in self-defense.

There is zero evidence to support what the "designs" of the people who were forced out of the park by police were. Rittenhouse and his "militia" friends were also violating curfew and had threatened people who were doing nothing illegal. If anybody was a threat to the public safety, it was them.

Again, your ridiculous conclusory statements are propaganda and nothing more.

@no1marauder said
First, you make a lot of conclusions based on almost zero evidence. Most of it is simple propaganda that you are regurgitating.

Your final sentence is absolutely incorrect; even IF Rosenbaum was "attacking" Rittenhouse (of which there isn't any evidence) that in and of itself doesn't allow Rittenhouse to use lethal force. This has been explained to you and other right wingers repeatedly here.

What propaganda is being regurgitated?

How about you try to tell me what you think happened that was not clearly captured by video and eyewitness testimony that makes this whole thing such a head scratcher.

Your final sentence is absolutely incorrect; even IF Rosenbaum was "attacking" Rittenhouse (of which there isn't any evidence) that in and of itself doesn't allow Rittenhouse to use lethal force. This has been explained to you and other right wingers repeatedly here.

You may be right: Rittenhouse had a history of sexually molesting children.

It could be that Rittenhouse died doing what he loved: trying to touch a minor.

Perhaps if you explain what you think was happening, we will have a better idea as to why you believe Rittenhouse's life was never threatened by the violent mob.

@philokalia said
What propaganda is being regurgitated?

How about you try to tell me what you think happened that was not clearly captured by video and eyewitness testimony that makes this whole thing such a head scratcher.

[quote]Your final sentence is absolutely incorrect; even IF Rosenbaum was "attacking" Rittenhouse (of which there isn't any evidence) that in and of itsel ...[text shortened]... have a better idea as to why you believe Rittenhouse's life was never threatened by the violent mob.

See my edit.

I don't know what happened to initiate the encounter between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Neither do you. I do know that it may well be legally important for reasons explained in the National Review article. Or it might not; Rittenhouse's defense must still show that a belief that Rosenbaum posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse was "reasonable".

And again "violent mob" is propaganda; what exactly were the protesters doing at the time that made them "violent"? Again, Rittenhouse and the "militia" were the ones threatening violence by pointing guns at people.

@no1marauder said
See my edit.

I don't know what happened to initiate the encounter between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Neither do you. I do know that it may well be legally important for reasons explained in the National Review article. Or it might not; Rittenhouse's defense must still show that a belief that Rosenbaum posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Rittenhou ...[text shortened]... Again, Rittenhouse and the "militia" were the ones threatening violence by pointing guns at people.

Kenosha had rioting that burnt down businesses and lots of cars the previous day. The mob was armed -- they expected violence, as did the militiamen that were assembled.

Neither could have any expectation that the other group would be peaceful.

Rosenbaum chased after him, by all descriptions and as recorded in video. Oddly enough, Rosenbaum was shot something like 5 times, and some are talking about how he was shot in the back, groin, and left hand, and in the video there are people saying he was shot in the head (!!)[1]. It seems unlikely that all shots even came from Rittenhouse, according to some analysis I've heard.

As he fled, he was attacked with a person wielding a skateboard and people had begun surrounding him. One of the people running at him was armed with a handgun, and no doubt he had heard gunshots from other people previously.

It seems very reasonable that, at every point, he feared for his life, and acted purely out of self-defense.

But sure, it's completely fair to say that this should be handled at a trial with all of the evidence presented and we may lack some key pieces of information.

[1] https://www.startribune.com/men-killed-wounded-joined-kenosha-protests-engaged-gunman/572252332/