Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've had a number of discussions with friends and relatives about the verdict. A recurring argument made in opposition to the verdict is "he shouldn't have been there". Maybe I'm wrong be the question of whether he should or shouldn't have been there has no bearing on Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. In my mind the only issue the jury was dealing with was whether in the moment each shot was fired was Rittenhouse faced by a threat of deadly physical force being used against him. Some individuals think that he forfeit his right to a self-defense claim because he shouldn't have been there. What are your thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou G

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,248 Posts
My thoughts are the same as yours. It does not matter why he was there. When there is a drive by shooting and an innocent person is killed do they say he/she shouldn't have been there?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
264 Posts
The only issue in front of the jury was wether Rittenhouse acted in self defense. With the benefit of hindsight we can all agree that a 17 year old with a rifle walking alone in a volatile environment could lead to an unforeseen confrontation.

My main concern is that mixing the two above arguments confuses the issue and potentially undermines the right to self defense. I heard arguments stating that because Wisconsin is a gun friendly jurisdiction he got away with it and also this is part of an attempt to use this case to support further gun control. I also heard folks saying that the law should be changed.

I find both arguments troubling- the law of self defense in NY is no different in that if you invoke self defense the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.

I do not understand why this concept is deemed unjust and I suppose that most people who do not think he acted in self defense have never thought of how they would react in a similar situation.

He showed trigger discipline in that he did not shoot anyone who was not an initial aggressor. The one individual he shot 4 times the amount of time between the first and 4th shot was .737 seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
I've had a number of discussions with friends and relatives about the verdict. A recurring argument made in opposition to the verdict is "he shouldn't have been there". Maybe I'm wrong be the question of whether he should or shouldn't have been there has no bearing on Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. In my mind the only issue the jury was dealing with was whether in the moment each shot was fired was Rittenhouse faced by a threat of deadly physical force being used against him. Some individuals think that he forfeit his right to a self-defense claim because he shouldn't have been there. What are your thoughts?
Ok he shouldnt have HAD to be there if the real police were allowed to do what they were hired to do and protect life and property of the citizens of that town.You may tell the people who have the argument with you that.
 

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,015 Posts
He had the legal and moral right to be there.
He was not there doing crime or "looking for trouble".
He WAS there doing community service and helping a small business that requested help.
He never threatened anyone. He never engaged in verbal sparring with any of the degenerates on the scene who were abusing him.
His father, sister, best friend, and employment were in that city.

SO, since he was within his rights being there, why shouldn't he be armed if it was legal for him to do so? Was he supposed to just let antifa degenerates and BLM criminals beat his brains out while he put out arson fires on private property where the police and fire department abandoned the location out of deference to "peaceful protest". He and other brave young men filled a void left by cowardly politicians, and he WISELY did it armed. All he wanted to do was help Kenosha and be left the 'eff alone. How anybody can castigate this kid is beyond me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
That's a pretty lame argument and could be better applied to the guys he shot. THEY shouldn't have been there. They were engaged in rioting, Rittenhouse was not. What if Rittenhouse was the owner of the dealership protecting his property; what would the nay-sayers say then?

A curfew was in place - no one should have been there but only Rittenhouse was charged with violating the curfew. The judge wisely tossed that out early in the process. Was anyone even charged with rioting, arson, looting, vandalism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,579 Posts
This was a victory, many thought after the second day of deliberations it was an indication it may be a guilty verdict. The liberals are fuming, the MSM failed again. The few conservative talk shows are calling out the hypocrisy. This was self defense, video proved it. The prosecutor cut a break on the bicep dude to be his victim star witness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
The three individuals shot and the infamous Jump Kick Man, who prosecutors lied about when they said they didn't know who he was, all had criminal records. Rosenbaum was a convicted felony sex offender. So if anyone shouldn't have been there it was these folks.

But this is the U.S. They all had a right to be there. Rittenhouse was there to serve the community. I can't say as much for the other four.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
That's a pretty lame argument and could be better applied to the guys he shot. THEY shouldn't have been there. They were engaged in rioting, Rittenhouse was not. What if Rittenhouse was the owner of the dealership protecting his property; what would the nay-sayers say then?

A curfew was in place - no one should have been there but only Rittenhouse was charged with violating the curfew. The judge wisely tossed that out early in the process. Was anyone even charged with rioting, arson, looting, vandalism?
They would likely cry about insurance...as if it's that easy. Damn the insurance. Most places in that area aren't backed by big corporations that can shut down for month+ to rebuild or relocate. They miss a day and it may take them a while to level that loss out. More important than that: TIME. Time to get building permits and licenses and whatnot. Time drawing up layout plans, shopping for material to bring a dream into fruition. Time spent with Pops and/or that know-it-all uncle hammering nails, installing light bulbs, laying tile, setting up furniture ETC. Money cannot replace that, and the way insurance companies roll in light of these riots, small businesses get shafted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
The argument has no legal bearing.
In reality, none of them should have been there.
But they were, and it happened.
And the jury made a tough decision based on the judge's instructions and Wisconsin law.
And no one else's OPINION matters.
Wow - Even Chris Cuomo said last night that the jury made the right decision!! Although he disagreed with Wisconsin law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,213 Posts
Years ago, I was a passenger, sitting in a car legally parked (and not yet started) in an end of row spot in a parking lot. The woman who backed into my door had to nerve to scream at the cop making the report that "if he had pulled out of the spot already, the shouldn't have hit me".
 

·
Right-wing Sith
Joined
·
6,525 Posts
Kyle should have gotten a medal, instead of a prosecution.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top