Rittenhouse

[Gameface]

There’s a couple things I think are true.

1) If Rittenhouse doesn’t take his rifle, he doesn’t kill anybody.

2) If people aren’t attacking the kid with a gun, pointing their gun at him, chasing kid with a gun, etc, etc, they aren’t going to get killed or shot.

It’s unfortunate situation, truly, but legally, it just isn’t murder. The witness for the prosecution said that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until the witness pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. That’s clearly self defense. And I’ve seen a lot of people rag on Rittenhouse bringing a rifle (rightfully so imo), but those same people never have an issue with the guy who got shot illegally having a weapon as well. Stupid people played stupid games, and now people are dead. It’s sad, unfortunate, but legally, it ain’t murder.

If they guy with the handgun had instead killed Rittenhouse rather than being shot would he have also simply defended himself from Rittenhouse?

 

[LogGrad98]

If they guy with the handgun had instead killed Rittenhouse rather than being shot would ha have also simply defended himself from Rittenhouse?

Hey you have to defend yourself from those that threaten you while defending themselves from you. It is the law of the jungle. No need to follow any other laws, just the law of the jungle. And it isn't like the guy with the handgun was coming out of a pharmacy, because then that would have really set off Rittenhouse. He would have definitely needed his ****ing AR then. Damn straight!

 

[RandyForRubio]

Do you also agree that bringing the rifle in and of itself increases the tensions in your interactions with the protestors?

It probably didn’t help.

I already said it was dumb to do, idk what else you want?

 

[RandyForRubio]

If they guy with the handgun had instead killed Rittenhouse rather than being shot would he have also simply defended himself from Rittenhouse?

Would most likely depend on the circumstances that it happened in.

The guy with the handgun testified in court that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until AFTER he had pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. Pretty hard legally to say that’s not self defense.

 

[Avery]

It's usually a good idea that if you ever see anyone walking around carrying an assault rifle, even if open carry is legal, it's best to walk away and dial 911 and let law enforcement handle it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Hey you have to defend yourself from those that threaten you while defending themselves from you. It is the law of the jungle. No need to follow any other laws, just the law of the jungle. And it isn't like the guy with the handgun was coming out of a pharmacy, because then that would have really set off Rittenhouse. He would have definitely needed his ****ing AR then. Damn straight!

Just my opinion, but I see people open carry a lot. Even if I were to see one at a protest holding a gun, I don’t think that pointing my own gun at said person would be wise. Like I said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Now Rittenhouse had no idea one of the guys he shot was a pedophile carrying illegally. Just got lucky with that one.

 

[Gameface]

Would most likely depend on the circumstances that it happened in.

The guy with the handgun testified in court that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until AFTER he had pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. Pretty hard legally to say that’s not self defense.

Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two other people. Pointing the gun at him was 100% justified. So that said, I find it strange that you can easily an unequivocally call Rittenhouse's use of deadly force self defense but are unsure if the other guy had justification to use deadly force. Based on our current laws, which are flawed and should be changed, both of them had every right to shoot the other. Self defense all around.

 

[Avery]

Would most likely depend on the circumstances that it happened in.

The guy with the handgun testified in court that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until AFTER he had pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. Pretty hard legally to say that’s not self defense.

I would tend to agree. I think Rittenhouse did defend himself from some that probably that wanted to hurt him (kind of what happens when you run around with an assault rifle, might irritate a few folk). My problem was always been that it wasn't his rodeo to even need to defend. Should never have been there playing solider with no formal training nor endorsements to act in such a situation.

Not a criminal issue, just one of common sense. I unfortunately think any Not Guilty verdict will endear others to also interject themselves in similar situations that they should no part in. That should scare all of us to expect more 'self-defense' cases for situations way out of your league.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It's usually a good idea that if you ever see anyone walking around carrying an assault rifle, even if open carry is legal, it's best to walk away and dial 911 and let law enforcement handle it.

No no no, people should probably chase the guy with a gun, maybe even point their gun at him, and cry foul when they get shot.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I would tend to agree. I think Rittenhouse did defend himself. My problem was always been that it wasn't his rodeo to even need to defend. Should never have been there playing solider with no formal training nor endorsements to act in such a situation.

Not a criminal issue, just one of common sense. I unfortunately think any Not Guilty verdict will endear others to also interject themselves in similar situations that they should no part in.

I agree 100%.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's usually a good idea that if you ever see anyone walking around carrying an assault rifle, even if open carry is legal, it's best to walk away and dial 911 and let law enforcement handle it.

You clearly do not understand the law of the jungle.

 

[LogGrad98]

I would tend to agree. I think Rittenhouse did defend himself from some that probably that wanted to hurt him (kind of what happens when you run around with an assault rifle, might irritate a few folk). My problem was always been that it wasn't his rodeo to even need to defend. Should never have been there playing solider with no formal training nor endorsements to act in such a situation.

Not a criminal issue, just one of common sense. I unfortunately think any Not Guilty verdict will endear others to also interject themselves in similar situations that they should no part in.

Can you really be defending yourself when you created the threat that drew people to you that you now have to defend yourself from? This opens a huge can of worms for precedent. Does that mean that active shooters can defend themselves from the police, since the police are threatening them? Or from other people who threaten them, like a janitor fighting back with a broom? The merry-go-round of self defense has to stop somewhere, otherwise we are just allowing chaos.