Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

There have been reports that the same police that were thanking these militia members for being there sought to push the protestors and rioters towards them.

I hope the jury in this case will agree that Rittenhouse was there looking for confrontation which is why he acquired a weapon through a straw purchase and openly displayed it.

 

Well his actions when a confrontation occurred were to run away from it so not sure how well that will fly.

 

Juries have reliably ruled that purposely placing yourself into a situation where lethal force will be needed does impact self defense claims. As does brandishing.

 

Seems like that's the basis for the prosecution's case. I am unaware of any law that supports that position.

 

I'd love to see you cite some case law that shows when an incident occurs and you flee from it and are pursued how that flight and pursuit don't break the chain of causation.
You can assault someone, break contact and flee, and that doesn't give them the right to pursue you through the streets like a deer. So even assuming your argument, which is specious to be clear, that doesn't end the case.

 

You didnt have to bring in a dictionary for me, do you even know who you are replying to or are you just making things up again?

I said before that Zimmerman started following Martin, but the dispatch told him to stop and he stopped following him. THATS THE LEGAL PART RIGHT THERE.
In WI (because thats what we are actually talking about with Rittenhouse) the law reads that ..

"(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."

So you can try and make the claim that Zimmerman was the aggressor and could not claim self defense, but the fact that he STOPPED the chase means that even though he originally lost the privilege due to provocation because he STOPPED he regains the ability to use self defense again.

Here is the problem with the pedophile, HE NEVER STOPPED. He kept going with his attack up until he got shot. He was the aggressor the entire time. He has no legal right to claim self defense like you have said, he lost his right to self defense and did nothing to gain it back like Zimmerman did

So when i say that both of the cases do not compare, its because THEY DO NOT COMPARE.

 

He's a Patriot! Throw the book at him.. bet you can't wait until the LEFT and their globalist pals outlaw conservatism completely.

 

That notice never happened.

 

He evened the odds of power to stand up to many evil rioters looking to do nothing but damage property and assault people in their way.

And they didn't like that.

 

correct because Rousenbaum never stopped attacking him so for you to give "adequate" notice, you would first have to stop chasing someone and trying to steal there gun. I'm glad you finally have realized the pedophile self defense theory that you have been trying to push is not a good legal argument. Took you a while but at least your finally here

 

So in your mind property damage is worthy of death?

How would you have felt if militia members started firing on the cult as they breached the Capitol building and assaulted officers?

 

Yes. Your life is **** if you think you can run around causing chaos and terror with impunity. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Come to my house with the threat of burning it down and I will meet you with force. If you bring 300 friends, I will bring a large gun. You have two choices at that point. NOT burn my house down to make a point I do not agree with about black people, or get stopped. If that means you have to die to stop...then you die.

Sorry.

And don't bring the capital riot in this because I don't support that either and those who got met with force got what they deserved. I do not support any riots.

 

You should 100% have the right to defend your home or business. I support people’s right to do that.

I also agree with you on the riots (both BLM and Cult45) that they should have been put down hard by the police. Peaceful protest is something everyone should support but when it becomes violent that is too far.

The issue here is Rittenhouse was not protecting his home or business — or even his state. He crossed state lines, bought a weapon through a straw purchase and then openly displayed this weapon during the middle of an open riot and during a curfew.

Adding a weapon like that to an already enflamed situation is almost guaranteed to make the situation much much worse. His intention will be what jurists decide.

 

Zimmerman gave the notice to the cops, but not to Martin. So there was no good faith withdrawal for Martin from the fight.
As you posted.. there must be an...adequate notice thereof.... to his or her assailant. Not to just to a 3rd party.

 

Yes thats the law in WI, not FL which is why i said pointing to a FL event and trying to make parallels to what happened in WI is not a good idea and a flawed argument. But either way adequate notice does not have to be verbal, it can be just you retreating and disengaging, or putting your hands up etc. In the zimmerman case the events went down like this..

• 7:11:33 – Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Martin is running.
• 7:11:59 – In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman responds with, "Yes." Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman: "OK"
• 7:13:10 – Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.
• 7:13:41 – The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.
• 7:16:11 – First 9-1-1 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard
• 7:16:55 – Gunshot heard on 9-1-1 call

So Zimmerman gave up chasing him and Martin ran away from him and Zimmerman lost sight of Martin
Martin attacks Zimmerman over 4 min after zimmerman stopped chasing him. So even if this happened in WI a 4 min break from chasing somebody is absolutely adequate notice.

So thank you for once again helping prove my side of the argument. your FL event is not a very good argument because of the law differences but it does help illustrate how wrong your argument is.

Now the fact your hung up on the "adequate notice" care to try and argue how the Pedophile gave "adequate notice" in the Rittenhouse case?

 

When you say crossing state lines you are making it sound like he drove far to get there. It was a 15 minute drive for him. To put that into context, I can't even get to the down town core of my city in 15 minutes. He drove less distance to protect a place that people drove more distance to destroy.

He came armed but was not aggressive. He was seen putting out fires and cleaning graffiti. CLEARLY he was there to help protect. And we need that. He came armed to the teeth likely hoping that displaying his arms would be enough of a deterrent to get 300 unruly *******s to move along. But a person IS allowed to defend themselves. If you bring 300 *******s looking to cause harm to a neighbourhood. A simple hand pistol isn't going to scare them off as a display of power. An AR15 might though. And some of those 300 unruly *******s didn't like it that 1 person was displaying as much power as they were with numbers.

 

Are you saying burning buildings couldn't cause death? Secondary explosions couldn't cause death? I mean damn it's one thing to overlook them burning business and personal property and shrugging shoulders but please, someone could have been in there and they would've still burned it down.

 

So this "The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant." is WI law and not FL law you used on Zimmerman, a FL case. And now you say it's not relevant when I showed you the error of your argument since the assailant never got the adequate notice of withdraw. Giving your notice to a cop =/= assailant.

No case has some kind of adequate notice to the assailant.


Besides that.
That far right wing violent gang supporter had no problems with being chased. He had a problem with hearing gun shots.
This is according to the gang members attorney. That was when he turned around and aimed his weapon, and that is assault

 

Being chased by an assailant who had intent to do harm and he was having projectiles thrown at him and if he felt he wasn't fast enough to get away then...ya. Allowed to protect himself. Point is he was retreating. Not aggressing. If he were aggressing with an AR15, you would have had a lot more dead then just one pedophile societal **** stain and a ninja with a skateboard on your hands.

 

so lawlessness will be tolerated as long as it is a Leftwinger.. or at least that is my observation.. had ANTIFA been treated like the Jan 6th .. it would have been over, suppressed in a week. Same with BLM

 

Conservatism did not define owning a gun or acting as a vigilante. That is your subjective projection as to what you think conservatism means. In facty Edmund Burke or David Hume never discussed gun ownership.

In fact is fascism not conservatism and specifically Hitler's National Socialism that discussed using the SA as a militia to impose power.

In fact the use of militias as part of a revolution against King George would not be conservative at all in fact the exact opposite. It would be defined by conservatives as anarchy.

You confuse Edmund Burke or David Hume with and Adolph Hitler and his principles of Mein Kempf.

 

People who break a law are accountable to society through the police and duly authorized enforcement agencies. It has nothing to do with left or right political ideologies and everything to do with what legal system one wants to use to enforce the law a duly authorized one with proper training or self appointed civilians with no proper training,

 

Your comment is selective. His retreating only happened AFTER he chose to leave a property site and walk into the streets towards civilians carrying a gun. You seem to skip the parts of his behaviour that don't suit you and if legal analysis is done on his behaviour it won't isolate to only one part of the events it will look at them in their entirety not based on your bias selective perspective.

In any alleged crime is what we call a causal connection or nexus or chain of events leading up to the alleged criminal incident. The law does not cherry pick only the parts of the events you want to look at.

The issue you ignore is why if Rittenhouse was defending property, did he leave the property to go into the streets with his weapon? He chose to switch from standing guard on property to a self appointed mobile enforcer of the law off the property.

In law he ceased defending the property when he left its site and chose instead to become a crowd enforcement agent. He was not protecting property at the time of the incidents. That is his rationalization for choosing to become a crowd enforcer but crowd enforcement by law when you are not on the property you claim to defend is no longer property protection you've dettached yourself from the property. Using your reasoning I can never be on any property to defend it, I can go anywhere in the world shooting at people and claim its related to protecting property. No that may be your rationalization for your motives but its not the actual act of property protection as you are not on the property.

Rittenhouse in fact abandon the property he claimed to protect. The other interesting issue is he NEVER spoke to the owner of any property. He chose on his own to protect property. How will he establish a role of protecting property if he can not point to a property owner who actually asked him to protect their property and then show he was in fact on the property doing just that?

Would a reasonable person protecting property abandon it knowing it was not protected to go walk towards civilians far away from the property? Is that pro-active property protection or is it seeking a confrontation?

Bottom line, you can rationalize it all you want to conform to your political beliefs but you are hiding behind the rationalization of property protection.

Call it what it was...Rittenhouse was acting as a self appointed crowd enforcement officer. You may feel that is politically a good thing, but the law does NOT state that.

That said the fact that police knew he was carrying a weapon and did not disarm him. How? If he told them he shot someone why wasn't he immediately detained and disarmed as is the police procedural requirement?

Some will argue they told him to get away from the crowds, well if they did why did they have to tell him that? Why did they not ask him if he had used his weapon or why did he not tell them he had at that point? How was it he just walked away not volunteering giving himself up? Does that make sense?

If what he was doing was helpful why would they have said that?

A lot of the stories do NOT add up for Rittenhouse. He seems to claim he indicated to his friend he killed someone but NOT the police. Why not? If he did tell the police why was he allowed to walk? The police claim they did not know who he was or that he had shot anyone. Are they lying or did he not tell them?

There is good grounds to argue if I was a defense lawyer that the police condoned what Rittenhouse and other self appointed civilian crowd enforcers did. If the defense team makes that argument they run the risk the police to protect themselves will deny they ever condoned anything.

Blaming the police in theory could relieve Rittenhouse of a certain percentage of civil liability for accidental death law suits and may serve to reduce higher criminal charges to lower ones or even full findings of innocence, that could be possible.

It is interesting though how Rittenhouse supporters continue to selectively ignore what the difference is between standing on a property protecting it and walking into a hostile crowd with a weapon is and shout out political opinion

 

@Death.. you are projecting and , probably intentionally obfuscating my message,

 

You're not aware that the attorney of that violent far right wing gang member actually stated that the Rosenbaum running after him, and tossing a flimsy half empty bag not going anywhere near him, did not scare that gang member at all. What scared him, was the gun shots. According to the witness, that caused the gang member to turn around and aim his weapon protecting himself against Rosenbaum who did not caused that threat at all. That is assaulting the wrong person. So the right to defense goes to Rosenbaum.