Hindsight 20/20. Fear, anger, adrenaline. How anyone reacts in that moment can’t be predicted and is difficult to judge afterward.
Well certainly thank you for saying “I can’t” do something I was not remotely doing to begin with.
100%.
Yep, that’s why we should discourage those civilians who would bring firearms into these kinds of situations using the full force of the law.
I’m afraid there’s no easy answers to your questions. Each case needs to be examined on its own before you can answer any of those questions.
I don’t believe so. But I am unaware of what he’s all charged with. Sometimes the D.A. Charges several things at the same time giving the jury the ability to convict of the lesser charge. But they can’t convict of something that wasn’t in the original complaint.
Not accurate, actually. The aerial video Bo posted shows that Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum’s interaction began with Rosenbaum in a parking lot and Rittenhouse walking down a sidewalk that runs along the parking lot…Rittenhouse stops and some sort of interaction (verbal) occurs, and then Rittenhouse continues along the sidewalk in the same direction he had been going. Rosenbaum pursues, and the fatal conflicts occurs after Rosenbaum has pursued Rittenhouse for a short distance. The parking lot Rosenbaum was in was next to a building and had several cars in it. Rosenbaum if he felt Rittenhouse was a danger could have simply not pursued him, which given Rittenhouse’s direction of walking, would have quickly denied Rittenhouse a clear shot at Rosenbaum because of cars in the way. If Rosenbaum still felt unsafe he could have even backed up not all that far and gone around the other side of the building whose parking lot he was in, and had multiple layers of cover and concealment separating him and Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse had his gun slung over his shoulder, not drawn or being aimed. The idea that Rosenbaum’s only means to remove danger was to attempt to rush and disarm Rittenhouse is not supported by the video evidence of the incident.
OK, so I guess your comment about McGinniss’ credibility was about the theoretical possibility that some future evidence might emerge which contradicted him. I did not appreciate that.
Clearly you are correct. There was plethora of options available to both parties. However, the only deadly element was the presence of a firearm. Removing it was an act of self defense.
It’s an open carry state. The fact that someone is carrying a weapon does not give anyone the right to disarm them. As Martin Hyde pointed out the video shows Rittenhouse walking away. Rosenbaum goes after him. Seconds before he reaches Rittenhouse a third party fires a “warning shot” in close proximity. In what way does that add up to Rosenbaum having the right to disarm Rittenhouse? If someone is trying to take your gun will you not have a reasonable belief it will be used against you?
The prosecution seems to be doing a good job for the defense.
So, what is required for a weapon to illicit fear for ones life?
Judging by the outcome of prior cases, the guy holding it needs to have dark skin.
Depends on if you want a factual discussion based on the law and facts of the case or an emotional one.
How so?
Ya know, I can’t wait to see this: go ahead and answer Crane.
I’m sorry do you not understand what the law and facts mean?
Basing your opinion of if he should be convicted on I don’t like open carry and he was an asshole is not basing your opinion on the case or the law where it happened.
You can not claim self defense in an open carry state just because someone is open carrying. You might not like it. I might not like it. What we like has no bearing on it. Go to an open carry state and try it if you don’t believe me.
So far in this case you have the victim and the defendant apparently have some words. We don’t know what was said. There is nothing to indicate Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him. In fact we see on video presented by the prosecution that Rittenhouse was walking away. You need a lot more than someone walking away from you and not making any threatening gestures to claim self defense. In an open carry state you don’t have the right to take someone’s gun just because you don’t like that he’s carrying it. Feel free to misplace your anger towards the law at me. I can take it. I would like to see the little shit in jail too. I just can see how this plays out in court.
I was speaking to the actions of Rosenbaum.
You need only fear your life is in danger. You do not have to prove intent.
" based on the law and facts "
Ultimately the ‘law’ is the instructions given to the jury. The ‘facts’ are selected by 12 jurors, from information given them by paid professionals each of whom has a vested interest in the outcome.
It is not the scientific method.
It’s funny how you focus on someone present at a riot that caused approximately 40 million dollars in damage and destroyed scores of businesses who was targeted by the mob and defended himself instead of the folks who traveled, many of them armed, with the intent of arson, assault, and looting all nominally for ‘social justice.’
Put each of them on trial and we can discuss it.
I mean, why are we discussing Kyle Rittenhouse when there’s poverty and slavery still happening, shouldn’t we be talking about that?
It’s a thread about Kyle Rittenhouse, why would we be talking about other random people that were out that night?
People have the right to self defense and people have the right to use public spaces. People don’t have the right to engage in arson and looting.