- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:45 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:45 pm to AggieHank86
Only interesting if you ignore a few facts we already know.
1
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:maybe that's why the cops aren't protecting businesses
you may use deadly force to protect YOUR OWN property, but NOT the property of another.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
Maybe you've explained this further, but are you suggesting that merely being at the car lot while open carrying could potentially make him the aggressor, despite not having used force of any kind until attacked, because in some states (potentially Wisky) you don't have the right to use deadly force to protect another's property?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:46 pm to MAGA
quote:Trolling?quote:Even you see it.....but you still want to troll.
no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself
The jury system in this country is probably on the verge of royally fricking your profession
If this IS the law in Wisconsin, this is the argument that we will be seeing in this case.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:48 pm to AggieHank86
You’re not a lawyer .
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:48 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, you’re like the Oweo of the PT board.
Only not as well liked.
Only not as well liked.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:49 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:Yes, I have seen the video.
the young mane (man?) was chased into the parking lot by a group of individuals that carried pipes. Additionally, one of those aggressors may have been holding a handgun and there may have been shots fired before he shot the ANFITA/BLM thug in the head.
So now that I have laid that information out what are your thoughts?
If he was initially sitting on the steps whittling when the pipe-wielding mob attacked, your point would make perfect sense. If he was standing at the property boundary and pointing his weapon at them BEFORE the starting swinging pipes, it leads to the question presented in the OP.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:51 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:No. There is some small possibility that he may not have been in violation of that statute, though it seems unlikely.
So you concede that he was not illegally in possession then?
I would be glad to address that distinct question on the other thread. Thank you.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
quote:quote:
Because I was the initial aggressor when I punched you in the face, I cannot LEGALLY claim that I shot you in self-defense vis-a-via the knife. That justification is simply not available to me in a court of law.
You sure about this? I'd like to see some case law that backs that up
Still waiting for your response.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You've already said you don't know the law, so how are you arriving to this conclusion?
No. There is some small possibility that he may not have been in violation of that statute, though it seems unlikely.
quote:
I would be glad to address that distinct question on the other thread. Thank you.
Is that why you haven't responded for pages to it?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
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
In the first instance, the dead guy threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter moments before he was killed.
In the second instance, he had been kicked hard after being chased down by an angry mob. And was being charged at by a man brandishing a gun.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:52 pm to Jbird
quote:
Only interesting if you ignore a few facts we already know.
Looking at Mother Theresa from another angle:
What is she had a short mustache...and was a dude...and spoke German...and was a leader in the late 1030's...and gassed a bunch of Jews....and started a World War?
Could we say that she was not a Saint. She was a horrific murderous monster?
Hey...making up hypothetical "facts" is easy!!
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:52 pm to AggieHank86
So the police aren't supposed to follow a man to his car, or otherwise impede him from doing whatever he wants to do, but rioters can follow a man down the street and when he defends himself from them, he's a murderer? Are these the new rules? Because I can tell you now . . . that dog don't hunt.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:52 pm to elposter
quote:Clearly.
What happens before the Molotov throwing guy attacked Rittenhouse will be what the prosecution will have to depend on for sure. Because from the Molotov throwing video through the end, Rittenhouse was in the right. Prosecution will have to prove Rittenhouse did something before this to be the initial agressor in a way that would forfeit his self-defense. I'm sure they will come up with something and plenty of "witnesses" to say Rittenhouse was out there threatening to shoot a bunch of "peaceful protestors."
And I think BHP has presented the only logical response to that prosecutorial approach.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle
quote:
AggieHank86
Checks out.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And I think BHP has presented the only logical response to that prosecutorial approach.
But you don't know the law, so who gives a shite what you think?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
He lives in a different state and is 17 years old
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:54 pm to narddogg81
quote:Later in the confrontation, yes.
He didn't use deadly force to defend a car lot, he used it to defend himself. You suck
I am addressing events which likely occurred minutes earlier, BEFORE the mob entered the premises and BEFORE Molotov guy shot his wad.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:He was only in the car lot because Mr.ShootMeN**ga! chased him there while trying to set the kid on fire.
the car lot did not belong to young Rittenhouse. Maybe someone knows the answers to these questions.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:55 pm to AggieHank86
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin so he has a right to defend himself no matter where he is.
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News