[IllSic_Design]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

He did not

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

No, he did not. He was walking down the street with the rifle hanging in front of him pointed down. He was then being chased by the mob. He had a skateboard whipped at his head. He was kicked to the ground. He only shot after being attacked. Do I think it was bright for him to be walking around with a rifle even if his intentions were good? No. But he didn’t start the altercation other than walking around holding a rifle. Unfortunately, if you didn’t watch the trial, you didn’t see the videos and the MSM didn’t report the facts or the videos. They just spewed their narrative.

[bucketfoot]

I couldn't say if the media lied or spewed a narrative as frankly I tend not to follow things like this and let the judicial process play out instead.

It is really only after that happens that you can actually get the facts. So I appreciated the insight from those of you who kept a closer eye on this.

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

I couldn't say if the media lied or spewed a narrative as frankly I tend not to follow things like this and let the judicial process play out instead.

It is really only after that happens that you can actually get the facts. So I appreciated the insight from those of you who kept a closer eye on this.

I have to say that I previously have had mixed feelings on whether trials should be televised as it usually becomes a circus with the lawyers playing to the cameras. It’s a good thing this was televised so people can see the truth.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

I have to say that I previously have had mixed feelings on whether trials should be televised as it usually becomes a circus with the lawyers playing to the cameras. It's a good thing this was televised so people can see the truth.

I was glad this trial was televised as well. People needed to see this.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

No he did not. The individual pointed the firearm at Rittenhouse first. The media lied the entire time, but it was revealed in court testimony - by the person he shot - that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse first. I appreciate that he didn't perjure himself on the stand and was truthful.

Originally Posted by IllSic_Design

He did not

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

No, he did not. He was walking down the street with the rifle hanging in front of him pointed down. He was then being chased by the mob. He had a skateboard whipped at his head. He was kicked to the ground. He only shot after being attacked. Do I think it was bright for him to be walking around with a rifle even if his intentions were good? No. But he didn’t start the altercation other than walking around holding a rifle. Unfortunately, if you didn’t watch the trial, you didn’t see the videos and the MSM didn’t report the facts or the videos. They just spewed their narrative.

Honestly, I'm disappointed - I expected better from each of you. You are all focusing on the last attacker who had a gun. Who cares?

If the first killing was justified, then so was the rest, because they had a skateboard and a gun.

However, the first had NEITHER. You guys should know better. It all hinged on the first, if the first was good, the rest was righteous. But the mentally unhinged first one there, he didn't have a gun. And Rittenhouse was running from him, yes...but then it was between cars, can't really see, gunfire in distance, etc...is it good or not? We don't know, but some of the evidence that came out was VERY INTERESTING. Like him having his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot. That to me, along wiht other things that came out that we didn't know about initially from the MSM, suggests Rittenhouse got it right.

But there was no firearm pointed at him in the first one or the second, so let's not go down that path. Its a non starter. Rittenhouse was the first one on scene with a prominently displayed firearm out of all the people who were killed / injured. Full stop.

This was an extremely interesting case, and I'm happy with the conclusion, but bucketfoot has a valid question.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Honestly, I'm disappointed - I expected better from each of you. You are all focusing on the last attacker who had a gun. Who cares?

If the first killing was justified, then so was the rest, because they had a skateboard and a gun.

However, the first had NEITHER. You guys should know better. It all hinged on the first, if the first was good, the rest was righteous. But the mentally unhinged first one there, he didn't have a gun. And Rittenhouse was running from him, yes...but then it was between cars, can't really see, gunfire in distance, etc...is it good or not? We don't know, but some of the evidence that came out was VERY INTERESTING. Like him having his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot. That to me, along wiht other things that came out that we didn't know about initially from the MSM, suggests Rittenhouse got it right.

But there was no firearm pointed at him in the first one or the second, so let's not go down that path. Its a non starter. Rittenhouse was the first one on scene with a prominently displayed firearm out of all the people who were killed / injured. Full stop.

This was an extremely interesting case, and I'm happy with the conclusion, but bucketfoot has a valid question.

We didn't insinuate his question was invalid. Nobody attacked him. We just presented the facts.

P.S. Rittenhouse presented himself with a firearm…..

…in an environment full of unrest, people looting, shooting, assaulting people, burning structures and cars, etc. IMHO, he would've been an idiot to go out there WITHOUT a firearm. His rifle was a show a force (…much like an unruly crowd). It was not actual force……until he was attacked.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

We didn't insinuate his question was invalid. Nobody attacked him. We just presented the facts.

P.S. Rittenhouse presented himself with a firearm…..

…in an environment full of unrest, people looting, shooting, assaulting people, burning structures and cars, etc. IMHO, he would've been an idiot to go out there WITHOUT a firearm. His rifle was a show a force (…much like an unruly crowd). It was not actual force……until he was attacked.

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

And I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question whether Rittenhouse, who indeed pointed first, caused the altercation

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

You need to align your timeline with the facts.

Rittenhouse was leaving the area BEFORE any rounds were fired. Rosenbaum and the mob chased Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum lunged at him and grabbed the rifle. It was at that point he was fatally shot. Huber was shot after he was hitting Rittenhouse and tried to take the rifle. Again, justified self defense. Grosskreutz was armed, pointed a gun at Rittenhouse AND tried to grab the rifle BEFORE he was shot. All three lost the criminal lottery.

TL;DR - No, Rittenhouse didn't point the rifle AT ANYBODY until they assaulted him. This is supported by CLEAR/HIGH QUALITY video footage.

[bucketfoot]

I'm good with all of this. That said my question still remains.

If you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused by doing so, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created?

I know this is a hypothetical circumstance and every case is different, but it is also very much a real world situation. Thus I'm interested in your take on this.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

I'm good with all of this. That said my question still remains.

If you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused by doing so, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created?

I know this is a hypothetical circumstance and every case is different, but it is also very much a real world situation. Thus I'm interested in your take on this.

If you point a gun at someone for any reason OTHER THAN self-defense, you are guilty of nothing less than brandishing a deadly weapon (..417 P.C. in California)……but most likely assault with a deadly weapon [firearm] (…245(a)(4) P.C. in California). Both are felonies.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by Onesie

At some point people will have to start asking themselves "why is the media pushing a version of a story?"

call me jaded, but i doubt that will happen.
i recall a passage from Groucho Marx's autobiography where he mentions the media slant on a performance painting him as the bad guy - and that was back in the 40's...

[F30lolz]

Sedan_Clan, do you have the forum authority to stop this clown posting the same random ‘where is admin blah blah blah’ crap?

Also, have any motorists have the balls to honk at you? Say light turns green and you delayed pressing on the gas and Speedy Gonzalez let’s it known….

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by F30lolz

Sedan_Clan, do you have the forum authority to stop this clown posting the same random 'where is admin blah blah blah' crap?

Also, have any motorists have the balls to honk at you? Say light turns green and you delayed pressing on the gas and Speedy Gonzalez let's it known….

I'm not a mod here so I have zero authority.

I haven't had anybody honk at me, but if a motorist did have the balls to actually do it, I would either laugh or pull them over for the improper/non-emergency use of a horn (….27001(a) CVC)……just to check them out. I wouldn't cite for it 99% of the time though.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

Here is an excellent article that covers the facts vs the media rhetoric and why so many seem to be confused.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...le-rittenhouse

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Fair - but the first person he killed - did he have a firearm or not? He did not. He may have been dangerous, etc, but he did not have a firearm. So Rittenhouse was the first with a firearm, the very last person shot was the one with a firearm, which I understand Rittenhouse did not shoot until he pointed it at Rittenhouse (which again, fair, that's the point where you have reasonable belief your life is in danger), and all I can say on that one is "good shot, could have been even better".

So again, to the question raised - did Rittenhouse first point his firearm at someone else? Yes. Without a doubt. Did he cause the altercation by doing so? I don't think that answer is nearly as clear. And that is where my interest lies. But his question was a good one, and I feel you guys are leaping to the third guy who pointed the firearm first. He is trivial to the matter. It all hinges on the first.

And I don't feel like anyone has addressed the question whether Rittenhouse, who indeed pointed first, caused the altercation

There was testimony by witnesses and the defendant that earlier in the evening Rosenbaum threatened to kill them and cut out their hearts. There was testimony that Rosenbaum had a chain and other unknown items in a bag. Then later, Rosenbaum chased the defendant into a car lot where the defendant was cornered and feared for his life (his testimony an numerous video evidence). Finally, Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the gun (no one knows his intention when grabbing the gun, only speculation can be made), the defendant defended himself and ended the threat (or perceived threat). The state obviously failed to prove the elements of the allegations and charged crime, even the lesser charges that they (Wisconsin) introduced at the end of the trial.

[vanguard8]

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

The only testimony that was given, is the aforementioned in the above post. Anything else would be speculation.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

The only one who could answer that is Rosenbaum.

[Pablo Chacon]

Regardless, the defendant in Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse was acquitted with prejudice. That’s all that really matters.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

The only testimony that was given, is the aforementioned in the above post. Anything else would be speculation.

One would think there was a reason, and that there would be some witness to how the two became antagonistic. I can only assume that no witness was willing to come forward.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Regardless, the defendant in Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse was acquitted with prejudice. That’s all that really matters.

That might be all that matters for Rittenhouse & his fate, but this case will be picked over for some time. I hope we can learn something from it.