The whole thing was on video.
Come on dude. Go watch the trial.

you still don't follow the argument lol

You're argument is shit and fell flat though. Gaige wouldn't get off on self defense if he shot Rittenhouse. I mean, the trial and jury brought all the facts to the table and based on said facts gaige had an illegal weapon there lol. Illegal being his concealed carry permit was expired and he was not allowed to be walking around with his pistol. He'd have no case.

Grosskreutz had an expired CCW, his gun wasn't illegal. even if he wasn't allowed to own a gun US self-defense laws have no bearing on whether you can actually use the involved weapon. he'd only get hit with the expired CCW charge which rarely gets prosecuted.

like... if you get assailed by an armed robber, you wrestle his gun and shoot him with it you aren't going to get charged with attempted murder for it lol

This post was edited by Hizkuntza on Nov 22 2021 12:38am

"You still don't follow the argument"

If he were to shoot Rittenhouse. And with all the proof and facts out there gaige would be locked up for life. Especially when prosecutors start hammering the fact he knowingly Brought a concealed weapon with an expired permit. That would be first degree easily.

lol you're literally arguing Grosskreutz went to Kenosha to murder Rittenhouse.

he could've been a fucking mafia hitman in town to kill another mafioso, it's completely inconsequential to his encounter with Rittenhouse.

You're implying if he shot Rittenhouse he'd be off scotch free. Which he wouldn't. That's all I'm saying.
You keep moving the goalposts

You're arguing that, if Grosskreutz hypothetically shot Rittenhouse dead, he would be charged with murder because of his expired CCW, to which I'm arguing his CCW status is inconsequential to the hypothetical self-defense claim. In the hypothetical scenario of shooting Rittenhouse dead, Grosskreutz would simply need to clear the self-defense bar regardless whether his CCW had been renewed or not. Even his intent, whatever it might've actually been, of originally bringing the gun would be inconsequential.

Rittenhouse was never "supposed" to have his gun because it was illegally sold to him, which has zero to do with the bar he had to clear to justify his killings - that he reasonably feared for his life before the threat he faced. the matter of whether he was lawfully carrying his gun was addressed separately. The prosecution repeatedly attacked Rittenhouse's intent of being in Kenosha as a way to shake the defense that he was actually fearful for his life. That angle was cooked when the defense proved Rosenbaum had reasonably provoked and threatened Rittenhouse's life - after which point the reason why Rittenhouse was there became irrelevant. It would've been the same for Grosskreutz - him and others chased after him because Rittenhouse had shot someone dead and could be reasonably assumed to be an active shooter, and I really doubt a prosecution team would be able to argue a person who had just offed someone running with a rifle through a riot shouldn't be reasonably considered a threat to be defended against..

This post was edited by Hizkuntza on Nov 22 2021 02:23am

Grosskreutz wouldn't have a case of self defense based on footage of that night. Not sure why that is hard for you to understand. Ccw expiring would definitely be a hit against a self defense case. I'm not saying that it is the sole factor.

And no need to try and explain the case to me. I followed it. Pretty cut and dry self defense case. Hell, Grosskreutz admits while on the stand Rittenhouse never fired upon him when his hands were in the air and he wasn't a threat. Wasn't until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse was he shot.

Not sure how you'd think he'd win a self defense case based on current facts. But believe what you want.

had a good run with out having to skip over shit here for a while.

maybe yall should go visit the politics subforum