re: Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle

quote:

---

There are some dumb friggers on here.

---

Some, but most just suffer from debilitating levels of myopia and/or confirmation bias.

quote:

---

Do people often tell you are funny?

---

No one with a triple digit IQ has told Hank he’s funny.

quote:

---

It would be a jury, not a judge.
How can you not know that?

---

You're such a moron. You didn't know that judges can throw out charges that don't fit the crime? They can also throw out guilty charges from juries if they don't fit the evidence.

If this makes it to a jury trial, the judge needs to hang. These charges should never see trial.

quote:

---

when he sarcastically and condescending asked me "where do I see that right (to self defense) in the constitution, he disappeared like a fart in the wind with the simple answer "the right to life" .

---

You meant that post SERIOUSLY? I took it as a joke. Sorry.

quote:

---

and shitpost during a subject that is highly charged.

---

It's almost like there aren't message boards solely dedicated to the discussion of the application of Law in America that would be perfect for someone who claims to want to engage in serious discussions instead of posting on a Political Board populated by people who mostly aren't lawyers .

Thank God I'm not cynical and tend to take people at their word....

quote:

---

if I have the right to life and the right to keep and bare arms do you not think I have the right to use those arms to defend my life?

---

Les, I am sure you are a decent person, loved by your dog and your family. But the simple fact is that your knowledge of Constitutional jurisprudence is essentially zero and that you understanding of the document itself is rather limited, and you tend to let your emotions get the better of you.

There is no "right to life" OR "right to self defense" enumerated in the Constitution.

Should a person who is under attack be able to defend himself? Sure. But that does not mean that it is set forth in the Constitution. We live in (what is supposed to be) a federal republic, and some few matters still remain the province of the States.

quote:

---

Gonna cost his family a ton of money tho

---

He has an army behind him. Funding will come.

quote:

---

State laws vary on the right to use deadly force to protect property. In Texas, for instance, you may use deadly force to protect YOUR OWN property, but NOT the property of another.

We do not know all the facts yet, but let's assume that Wisconsin law is similar and that the car lot did not belong to young Rittenhouse. Maybe someone knows the answers to these questions.

Set aside the self-defense question for a moment, because that is addressed LATER.

"Deadly force" is usually defined to include threatening the use of ACTUAL deadly force. If young Rittenhouse used that sort of "implied" deadly force to defend the car lot, he might be considered the initial aggressor, even if Molotov guy was the first to actually commit a PHYSICAL use of deadly force.

Under the laws of most states, the initial aggressor loses the protections of the self-defense affirmative defense. If that is the case in Wisconsin, he may run into problems

Again, I have not researched Wisconsin law on this point, and I would welcome input from anyone familiar with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself. The question I raise is whether the LAW will allow him to present that defense.

I anticipate 10:1 downvotes for even asking the question, but this thread still might generate some interesting analysis from those who LIKE analysis and not just pep rallies. In other words, about one person in ten will even understand the purpose of the thread.


EDIT: I was close. Looks like about 12:1 right now.

---

Rittenhouse's right to carry is constitutionally protected. Whether he says hes doing it to "protect property" or not is irrelevant as this is opinion and until whatever force is actually used and whatever totality of circumstances are inherent in that moment of use the intent is not established.

This is an interesting take, and for the simple sake of argument i'll throw my (almost worthless) 2 cents into the ring.

I find it interesting that you qualify your statement of "deadly force" with the term "actual" as if "deadly force" NEEDs a qualifier. The force used either has the possibility to be lethal or it doesn't. Since anything is technically possible and I'm sure there's a few idiots out there that have managed to kill themselves with paper cuts, the law is usually written with the added burden of intent.

I think we can all agree that the use of a firearm fits within the guidelines of deadly force because when it is used against another living thing the INTENT is not to tickle or "i wanted to see if it would bounce off." The intent is there to kill or seriously/grievously injure.

that being said, i'm sure that we can also agree that throwing a flaming bottle filled with some kind of accelerant at someone ALSO qualifies as the intent to kill or grievously injure.

at the time according to the video Rittenhouse appeared to be retreating, and did not appear to use "deadly force" until AFTER he already had "deadly force" used upon him by another. IMO that would qualify him, during that confrontation, as being well within his right to defend himself with whatever force which is appropriate to stop the threat of "death or grievous bodily injury."

now, I am not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. this post just represents my opinion.

DISCLAIMER:
I am not a lawyer. Your mileage may vary. No one will call and no salesman will visit you.

quote:

---

Of course. His right to own and carry/bear arms is governed largely by the US Constitution (slight complication arising from his age, but let's set that aside for the moment). But the extent of his right to USE the weapon (defense of self, defense of property, etc) is governed largely by STATE law. People tend to forget that the US Constitution was intended to be a VERY limited document.

---

Agreed, which is why in the rest of my post I talked about intent. The document also says "Congress shall make no law," which further limits the right.

He has the right to BEAR his weapon but the right to USE it, and it's manner of use is pared down by law. IDK the laws of Cheeslandia. He may be within his right to use the force he used or he may not have been. Totality of Circumstances.