re: Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle

Hank creates some retarded contrarian fan fiction to argue against his view of the board’s consensus , then claims intellectual superiority when laughed at.

Rinse

Repeat

quote:

---

You're shitposting

---

Yep

This Thread is 100% about him pissing people off on purpose based on nothing. He literally sat there thinking to himself how he could f*** with the board over something patently obvious. This is why Hank is hated and why he deserves to be hated

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

You've now added this which was not part of the OP

---

You are mistaken. From the OP:

quote:

---

"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.

---

Maybe I was speaking legalese. Occupational hazard.

quote:

---

Did you intend to suggest he'd have needed to actually do something proactive with the firearm to be seen as the aggressor

---

Yes.

quote:

---

or merely have it there since potentially he could not defend another's property?

---

Slightly different question, because ownership governs whether he had the RIGHT to use "deadly force" (whether actual or "implied") in defending the property.

If he owned the property, he would arguably be justified in pointing the weapon and saying "stay away from this car lot." If he did NOT own the car lot, the argument that he had a such a legal justification is MUCH weaker.

quote:

---

Additionally, one of those aggressors may have been holding a handgun

---

The tool that lost half of his arm WAS holding a pistol.

you are the biggest POS on this board.

quote:

---

The reports that I have seen indicate that young Kyle was specifically defending THAT car lot.

---

Well, video evidence says otherwise.

quote:

---

If that is not the case, the analysis obviously changes.

---

Why not just say it has changed since it's clear as day even though it was night?

quote:

---

The reports that I have seen indicate that young Kyle was specifically defending THAT car lot.

---

"The reports I have seen indicate that Sandman stood in the way of that poor Indian dude and smugly impeded the peaceful redskin's walk"

Reports can be wrong...usually skewed in one direction.

quote:

---

let's assume that Wisconsin law is similar

---

quote:

---

Set aside the self-defense question for a moment,

---

More hypotheticals from the shitty lawyer that thinks the mccloskeys destroyed their own gate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

From your own link

---

A person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense as a justification unless they abandon the combat or the other party has responded with excessive force.

---

YES, which is why I said that this is the argument I would present if I were representing young Rittenhouse.

If I were the DA, I would argue that he did NOT disengage and that the entire sequence of events constituted a single confrontation.

quote:

---

You're shitposting.

---

You really are an angry little fellow