I still do not hear him say he is a medic. He said he provides medical assistance. And I listened to it twice.
1 Like
I agree about refraining of leaving the house at 2 am if you do not have to. Getting that Monster Energy drink can definitely wait until tomorrow.
1 Like
But it does not have to.
It is legal to go out to a store at 2am, and we are still in a free nation… or well, that may be in question these days.
1 Like
Agreed on that one. I do think that self defense could be claimed by Kyle for the guy with the GUN. BUT it depends on the narrative. The GUN GUY could claim he was chasing down Kyle who just murdered a rioter (from HIS perspective) and thus would invalidate Kyle’s self defense claim. (I believe this is the DA’s Angle)
per Wisconsin Statute 939.48 (2a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack)
This HINGES on the First Guy Shot Joseph D. Rosenbaum and how that went down. He wasn’t armed and he was shot 5 times. Did he attack Kyle? Doesn’t look good if this the first event.
Agreed. On both counts.
Blockquote It is legal to go out to a store at 2am, and we are still in a free nation… or well, that may be in question these days
Yeah but if the city makes a special announcement that the Convivence Stores should not be gone to starting at 12am due to criminal activity in the area and you go at 2am. What does that mean?
To quote Varg Freeborn, “you only have the rights you can afford to defend in court”.
2 Likes
It would not invalidate the self defense claim, it would be the felon’s word against Rittenhouse’s word, and the video evidence of the first attacker chasing Rittenhouse, and the molotov cocktail being thrown at him and the gunshot fired (at him? in the air behind him?.. he might not know where the shot was directed and thought they were shooting at him)… and he turned and fired.
Hard to argue with video… Since he was being chased, since they attacked him, with lethal force (yes, a molotov cocktail is lethal… ) and that does not fit with ‘a person who engages in unlawful conduct.’
The terrorists were engaged in unlawful conduct.
Now, is there other witnesses or video that alters the information we have…? We must wait, but the witnesses so far, and the video so far, shows Rittenhouse clearing had justified self defense.
Same with the one who hit him while he was down … hit him with a skate board, which could kill him… and then the armed felon… where he only shot once… with all the adrenaline pumping he restrained himself and only ended that threat. He still had ammunition.
The only potential issue is he had a rifle and I am not sure on how they interpret the Wisconsin law.
1 Like
That is an absurd statement. No offense, but you are distorting and trying to create a scenario that is not valid.
If the stores are to be closed at 12 midnight, then you know they are closed and you would not go at 2am.
The scenario of going to the store at 2am and it being legal is based on the normal situations we have.
Not all locations are bad at 2 am, but some might be risky with unsavory characters hanging around…
But it is not illegal to go to the store.
1 Like
In cases of being somewhere you shouldn’t be look at the trucking industry. If a truck is involved in an accident that trucks log books are scrutinized over and if one simple thing doesn’t match then that truck would have not been there to be involved in that accident. If Kyle had not come to Kenosha those shots would not have taken place.
I’m in no way implying he didn’t act in self defense. Just stating that he came from a different state and legally cannot have any firearm in his possession in Wisconsin. So because he shouldn’t have been there… and because he was illegally in possession of a firearm he will most likely be prosecuted. Maybe not for 1st degree but he will get something.
Just IMO as well
1 Like
I can’t vouch for the source, but here’s more commentary on it:
1 Like
Some interesting info in this article… Kyle Rittenhouse Was Working as a Lifeguard in Kenosha the Day of the Shooting, Went to Clean Vandalism at School After Work
I’m not vouching for the source or saying it’s accurate. Just info I hadn’t heard and seems to be from Kyle’s lawyer.
2 Likes
As long as this thread is all about opinion, speculation, and conjecture here’s some more, albeit this guy was there (he says)
1 Like
We MUST be careful to not create a precedent for self defense that differs from the current legal definition or criteria.
The criteria for self defense is NOT… Should he have been there… or … .If he was not there, he would not have had to shoot those three in self defense.
The criteria is… you are somewhere you are legally allowed to be.
Rittenhouse was legally allowed to be in Kenosha.
The Wisconsin law regarding a rifle possessed by someone under 18 might be an issue, but he clearly met the criteria for self defense.
He was legally allowed to be there
He was being chased, and had a molotov cocktail thrown at him (a deadly weapon) and someone shot a gun (he believed he was being shot at), and when he turned, the one he shot had almost caught him (which would have had dire physical consequences for him… serious bodily harm or death)… so he fired.
The other two, he was kicked in the head (that attacker got away), he was hit with a skate board (a deadly weapon), and the third, who was felon in possession of a firearm illegally… had a handgun ( a deadly weapon).
7 Likes
The Wisconsin law regarding a rifle possessed by someone under 18 might be an issue,
If he is not legally allowed to carry a gun at 18 per the charges, where does that leave him? Would he still be legally allowed to use the firearm in self defense?
Rittenhouse was legally allowed to be in Kenosha
There was a curfew. Was he exempt from the 8pm curfew? If so, why?
He was being chased, and had a molotov cocktail thrown at him (a deadly weapon)
Per the charges the “molotov cocktail” was a plastic bag. What is your source for the molotov cocktail? Was the molotov coctail lit or in liquid form? Is the liquid form of a molotov coctail dangerous? If they find that it was a plastic bag or it was a soda or something else, where does that leave Kyle?
Plastic bags are difficult to throw… unless they are filled with something. Was it a flammable or noxious substance? Was it a block of ice, i.e. intended to hit like a brick, then melt away from evidence?
2 Likes
Plastic bags are difficult to throw… unless they are filled with something. Was it a flammable or noxious substance? Was it a block of ice, i.e. intended to hit like a brick, then melt away from evidence?
Agreed. So what evidence do we have that it was dangerous? Even if it was in some type of container. Was that considered a dangerous weapon?
Another camera angle here. Was Rittenhouse about to get shot while he was on the ground? Looks like self-defense all the way!
https://twitter.com/firstcitizensam/status/1299087825854316549
3 Likes
Especially agree about the mayor. He should “have LEO’s back”, not stab them in the back before all evidence is in.
2 Likes
Let me answer my own question. I found this item that appears to be a bottle of something within a plastic bag (Kyle is in the background with his organge pouch standing over the rioter he shot five times. IF this is the “molotov coctail” does that look like a dangerous weapon to a reasonable person? Does anyone see any type of flames or burning anything in any of the videos? EDIT ( Further reviewing the video it does appear to be the item swung at Kyle. So that is the “molotov coctail”.)
Here is the original video go to :27: