Is he a hero or a zero? 17 year old with rifle
#41
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   
Reply
#42
(11-19-2021, 08:39 PM)Juniper Wrote: In my opinion, I can see how the jury came to this verdict.  But I don't agree that in anyway, shape or form, he needed to come to the incident with an assault rifle to "help".  His "help" was unnecessary and unwarranted and resulted in loss of life.

  Well I agree somewhat but with His "help" was unnecessary and unwarranted and resulted in loss of life."
But surely you must see that what was unnecessary was Rosembaum who was chasing and throwing something at KR.
Should  a 17 year stupid kid be there with a rifle? Well I believed the lies from the media that it was illegal. But the truth is under Wisconsin law he was indeed allowed to own that rifle.
Also another lie is his mother drove him to Kenosha. She did not. Or that he crossed state lines with the rifle. Also a lie.





I myself am guilty of calling him a kid and stupid like above . When I was 17 I was trained to use an M-16 and I had been hunting and shooting guns for at least 5 years.
Reply
#43
(11-20-2021, 10:07 AM)Scrapper Wrote: He will kill again.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Thats the dumbest comment ever made on this forum, congrats.
Reply
#44
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   

I wasn't making a claim. I was just posing a hypothetical question.

If the third guy had killed the AR guy, couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys? Could he have justified his actions by claiming the same self defense laws?

For the record, the court went about as I expected it would.
Reply
#45
(11-20-2021, 07:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   

I wasn't making a claim. I was just posing a hypothetical question.

If the third guy had killed the AR guy, couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys? Could he have justified his actions by claiming the same self defense laws?

For the record, the court went about as I expected it would.
Right claim was the wrong word.


   couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys?
T
o answer the question that was pretty much exactly what the defense tried to claim.
  
You should say he saw KR shoot two guys who were attacking him in self defense so the "third guy" thought I guess I will also attack him Razz . Because that's what happened.

You can't chase a guy down with a small mob and then when he is being attacked you jump in a and stick a gun in his face and call that self defense.
Reply
#46
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   
He had no business being there. The child should have stayed home. The child should not have had access to an AR-15. As a responsible gun owner... including an AR-15... IMO, no child should have unsupervised access to guns. And as a mother, IMO, his mother failed him.

This all would have been avoided if he child would have stayed home.

2 lives wouldn't have been lost.

I have no doubt that he will kill again.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Reply
#47
(11-20-2021, 11:09 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 07:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   

I wasn't making a claim. I was just posing a hypothetical question.

If the third guy had killed the AR guy, couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys? Could he have justified his actions by claiming the same self defense laws?

For the record, the court went about as I expected it would.
Right claim was the wrong word.


   couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys?
T
o answer the question that was pretty much exactly what the defense tried to claim.
  
You should say he saw KR shoot two guys who were attacking him in self defense so the "third guy" thought I guess I will also attack him Razz . Because that's what happened.

You can't chase a guy down with a small mob and then when he is being attacked you jump in a and stick a gun in his face and call that self defense.

No, I don't think the defense would have wanted to even mention anything like that. I think the prosecution tried to present the AR kid as being more aggressive toward the third guy then just defending himself though. I'll admit I didn't follow the details of the trial all that closely since I'd already presumed that the kid would be acquitted, so I could have missed what you describe.

My original hypothetical question though assumed that the AR guy would have been taken out of the picture and so unable to provide his side of the story which likely would have changed the entire narrative of the same situation. The winner writes the history sort of thing.

I don't think any of this is really important now. I was just wondering about how useful self defense laws could be to a person intending to off someone. I think they are poorly written and easily twisted to unintended ends.
Reply
#48
(11-21-2021, 08:48 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   
He had no business being there. The child should have stayed home. The child should not have had access to an AR-15. As a responsible gun owner... including an AR-15... IMO, no child should have unsupervised access to guns. And as a mother, IMO, his mother failed him.

This all would have been avoided if he child would have stayed home.

2 lives wouldn't have been lost.

I have no doubt that he will kill again. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 First of all what you call a child is what we have been sending to fight our wars since Vietnam and I guess before.
 As far as what KR did an adult who showed up with a rifle could have easily ended up doing the same thing.

 As far as blaming the mother you have been fooled and lied to by the media.  
KR's mother did not drive him to Kenosha nor were state lines crossed. There is no evidence that shows she knew he even had an Ar-15. KR's friend bought the gun and it was stored at his friends fathers house. His friend is facing charges.

Yes You can say if KR had stayed home home 2 lives wouldn't have been lost.
You could also say that if a belligerent Rosenbaum had not chased KR with an obvious intent to do harm he would not have been shot and setting up the following shooting.
Rosenbaum was clearly a trouble maker an instigator and a career criminal BLM member. A racist and a cop hater.

As far as the other life lost I guess Anthony Huber should not  have joined in with the mob and not have tried to bash KR over the head with a skateboard.

I thought KR was guilty like you until I listened to the facts ans watched it ALL play out on video.
Reply
#49
(11-21-2021, 09:32 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 11:09 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 07:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   

I wasn't making a claim. I was just posing a hypothetical question.

If the third guy had killed the AR guy, couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys? Could he have justified his actions by claiming the same self defense laws?

For the record, the court went about as I expected it would.
Right claim was the wrong word.


   couldn't he have claimed he was engaging an active shooter who he just saw shoot two other guys?
T
o answer the question that was pretty much exactly what the defense tried to claim.
  
You should say he saw KR shoot two guys who were attacking him in self defense so the "third guy" thought I guess I will also attack him Razz . Because that's what happened.

You can't chase a guy down with a small mob and then when he is being attacked you jump in a and stick a gun in his face and call that self defense.

No, I don't think the defense would have wanted to even mention anything like that. I think the prosecution tried to present the AR kid as being more aggressive toward the third guy then just defending himself though. I'll admit I didn't follow the details of the trial all that closely since I'd already presumed that the kid would be acquitted, so I could have missed what you describe.

My original hypothetical question though assumed that the AR guy would have been taken out of the picture and so unable to provide his side of the story which likely would have changed the entire narrative of the same situation. The winner writes the history sort of thing.

I don't think any of this is really important now. I was just wondering about how useful self defense laws could be to a person intending to off someone. I think they are poorly written and easily twisted to unintended ends.

I'm not sure how self defense laws could be written. As far as when it is legal to shoot someone it's basically the same all over.
You have to be in fear of great bodily harm to yourself or your loved ones.

The "in fear" part IMO is there because if you are in your own home and someone sneaks in and surprises you and you shoot and kill them. Then no one can say that you used a deadly weapon against someone that was unarmed.
Reply
#50
(11-21-2021, 08:48 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 05:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-20-2021, 12:38 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I've been wondering, if the third shooting victim, the one with the handgun, if he'd shot and killed the kid with the AR could he have used the same self defense argument to justify his actions? So, isn't the self defense laws in this case just legal cover for whoever wins in a gun fight regardless of who instigates the events?

   I don't see it as you.

 Grosskreutz was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand .KR fell and had already been attacked by some fool who tried to bash him in the head with a skateboard a (deadly weapon) and KR defended himself and killed the fool.
Then G caught up and pointed his gun directly at KR. How was KR supposed to know if G was going to shoot or not shoot? KR assumed he was about to be shot.

So in your scenario you call what happened a "gun fight regardless of who instigates the events"
What I saw was several people who were chasing KR and trying to hurt him. Not a gunfight.

 If  anyone instigated the events it was Rosenbaum .......

 "Rosenbaum was also the focal point of controversy because of his behavior on the night of the shooting; numerous witnesses, even for the prosecution, described Rosenbaum as belligerent and getting into disagreements that night as well as being involved in an arson fire in a dumpster."

He is the one who instigated or put in to motion everything that took place. He was the one who threw something at KR , who chased KR. 






 
   
He had no business being there. The child should have stayed home. The child should not have had access to an AR-15. As a responsible gun owner... including an AR-15... IMO, no child should have unsupervised access to guns. And as a mother, IMO, his mother failed him.

This all would have been avoided if he child would have stayed home.

2 lives wouldn't have been lost.

I have no doubt that he will kill again. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Your logic is based completely on feelings and hypotheticals. The same could be said for EVERYTHING that ever happens.

Well, if John Wilkes Booth had just stayed home. If Baby Jessica had just stayed in the house.

You can oppose the choices made, but he had every right to be there and in a court of law he was found innocent of the charges. The people he shot would be alive if THEY stayed home, ffs.

And if he kills again it will also be in self defense when some revenge seeking jackal tries attacking him.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)