ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?

I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE

IN THIS LIFE OR THE NEXT

Legally it's pretty shakey actually. You're not allowed to fire at someone who attacks you under all circumstances... and Wisconsin has some very specific laws around 'defense of property' which will likely result in him receiving a guilty verdict of at least reckless homicide.

I wouldn't imagine you've bothered actually looking into any of that though.

This post was edited by MxVivianWulf on Nov 22 2020 12:20am

Well, let's start with intent first. Rittenhouse committed a general intent crime. The prosecution only needs to prove that he committed the crime not that he had specific intent to commit that crime. Thus where he's likely going to get hit with manslaughter.

You're absolutely right about him not crossing state lines with the firearm. That's my bad. I Googled this and you're 100% right. Don't know how I didn't read that.

"He only fired at people who were attacking him, as he is legally and morally able to do." Not disputing what the law says. I'm disputing that he acted legally. I've seen the video evidence. It does not paint Kyle in a great light. It does not go to show that he is innocent. It does not go to show that he is acting in self-defense.

"He is on video calling someone almost immediately after it happened." He shot someone, called his friend, then shot two others.

"He purposefully fled toward police and stated he was doing so." He fled to his hometown in Illinois.

I'm very excited for his trial. Mostly because of his lawyer. It's been my experience that innocent people tend to hire good lawyers while the not so innocent tend to hire the TV lawyers.

'self defense' laws differ from state to state. You cannot use lethal force in self defense in any and all situations. Wisconsin state law will likely see Kyle convicted. Though ofc it always comes down to a jury's decision... unless he takes a plea anyway.

I cited the main stipulations earlier, but here is the exact text of the self-defense law:

'A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.'

Nothing in the subsections appears to be disqualifying in this case.

He was clearly chased for some distance while running away and more than reasonably feared for his life and thought it was necessary.
An eye witness states the guy grabbed for Kyle's gun.

Defense of property isn't the applicable law here.
He didnt shoot him to protect property. Kyle shot him because the guy was running at him and attacking him.

I am aware of their differences by state. I think we'll see Rittenhouse convicted of second-degree intentional homicide. I don't believe he'll be charged with felony murder nor do I believe he'll be charged with first-degree.

Edit: @cambovenzi: keyword in your above post is "reasonably". Thus second-degree intentional homicide. I don't believe he acted reasonably.

This post was edited by MizzouFTW on Nov 22 2020 12:37am

I appreciate this admission.
Hopefully you remain open to further changes.

The false claim was adopted into the mainstream left's oft-repeated false narrative of what happened that was intended to paint kyle as a murderer. Its not surprising many people haven't heard differently.
Dissent against that narrative is stifled or not permitted on various platforms. (FB, insta, many major reddit subs)

It served as an easy talking point and distraction from the more important facts.
"He crossed state lines with a gun!"
No, and sorry that still doesn't make it OK to attack kids and doesn't remove the right to self defense.



The videos show Rosenbaum pursuing and chasing Kyle over a long distance.
He started sprinting at him, threw a bag at him and chased him into a parking lot. A shot rang out by someone else and kyle turned to see the madman running at him and closing the distance. Kyle's shots are heard right after.
Clear self defense.

KR pictured running away with Rosenbaum chasing him and throwing the bag:


What part of that doesn't indicate self defense?
Is that not what you saw in the videos?


Kyle R standing near the first downed assailant and making a phone call as others rush in to provide aid:





This is omitting some pretty important facts.
Like the fact that Kyle was running away and they pursued him,
the fact that they attacked him,
and the fact that he only fired at close quarters after he fell to the ground and they swung objects at his head and pulled a gun on him.


Kyle R attempts to turn himself in to police, with his hands in the air as he walks towards them:


This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 22 2020 01:08am

it is pretty reasonable to shoot a madman chasing after you and grabbing for your gun. It doesn't get much more reasonable than that.

I mean you're wrong but that will be decided in court and although I have consulted lawyers and law students on this subject neither you nor I are in fact lawyers. So we'll just have to see.