Kyle Rittenhouse jury to hear closing arguments: LIVE UPDATES

Agree on your 2nd statement. Your 1st appears to be a fantasy of what you would like to happen in these situations. We know there are idiots that "commit suicide by cop" too often. Unarmed, they charge a cop daring them to shoot, which they sometimes do. And if the cop reasonably thinks harm immanent, it is legal. This is, for instance, apparently what happened with Michael Brown in Ferguson.

 

Being a scared child doesn't negate the right to self defense.

 

No doubt, but I hear more noise from the "he is innocent" crowd.

 

No one said it does. His entire defense is founded upon it.

Well, Rosenbaum didn't charge cops, although there were plenty of them around. He also didn't charge the Marine who ignored him.

 

Never said it was common or anything like that. I just answered a question. However I wouldn't count on your last sentence too much. He may do that because he thought it was obvious how much the prosecution's case sucked. ( I mean seriously...prosecution literally argued that no one has ever been killed in a fist fight in closing arguments and that kyle should have put down his gun to fight rosenbaum.... how moronic is that?) So he may let it go to the jury as he couldn't imagine them coming up with anything but an acquittal. Doing so means less work for him.

 

I very much doubt that. There are plenty of videos out there of cops shooting unarmed people who attack them.

 

Those who drafted the law understand that racism is systemic and that they and their families would likely not be at risk.

 

I don't understand all the sudden reliance on what cops would or would not do. Fact is cops weren't doing anything and had they been doing their jobs, supported by the elected authority and perhaps the Guard, a whole lot of what happened around the city wouldn't have happened.

 

Now you know that it's not. I did my job by letting you know. The rest is up to you

 

I can agree with that ...

 

On the topic of Rosenbaum attacking an LEO, wouldn't have happened. Obviously this is my opinion, but Rosenbaum wasn't looking for an encounter he couldn't control. He wanted to exert his dominance over someone. He was a thug and a bully and to be honest he got his comeuppance. He chose a target that was alone and vulnerable, he made Kyle his prey. Most people are not going to shoot the aggressor in this situation, and the aggressor relies on that fact to assert their will upon their prey. In this instance you can call his character into the equation as well, since his criminal record suggest just that, he preys on the weak. I really don't understand how anyone could be on Rosenbaum's side here. Anyone who can't see that, go read John Locke's second treatise, which strongly influenced our founding fathers and the right to self defense.

 

It's a racist symbol is a gd meme. I wouldn't consider it a racist symbol. YOU should be smart enough to not consider it a racist symbol. And if you didn't then you should, and I would troll you by using it often even in the context of expressing white pride. Just to get you to be triggered over a hand symbol that's used in basketball...scuba diving and up until 4chan trolled you all by inventing this notion that it is suddenly a racist symbol.

Even if white supremacists start using it unironically...it is STILL just an ok symbol.

Good lord it amazes me how ridiculous the left has gotten.

"everything is racist!"

 

Yeah like your suggestion that us troops in the revolution just walked into British troops just to get themselves killed.

 

If one believes Rittenhouse was wrong, does that meant that person supports rioting and looting?

You didn't come close to answering my question.


Rights are to be exercised responsibly.

 

And you're sure that's what I said?

 

So the thugs chasing and attacking Kyle had a right to do that and were acting resonsible?

 

You missed the point. It is not about reliance, it's about discernment aka Cop vs Marine vs a child (Kyle), where grown ups and/or trained individuals like a cop and the Marine would have handled the situation differently. They would not have allowed it to get to that point, as is evidenced by the way the Marine handled Rosenbaum. It does not negate Kyles claim to self defense, but is a point I wanted to make.

Yes, it is both.

No. Even if Kyle has law on his side, he admits it was stupid of him to insert himself in that situation. Tulsi Gabbard, who believes in peoples right to bear arms and defend themselves called him a "foolish kid". I think any honest person would agree that is was foolish, but it does not negate his self defense claim,

 

This case is not just about Kyle's right to self defense.. It's about this prosecutor setting a president for no one having the right to self defense.
You people arguing that Kyle did not have the right to self defense make me v ery suspicious as to your allegiances, I do not know how you could view the evidence and otherwise come to your conclusions.

 

No, they haven't. Its the ok sign ffs. Nixon flashing a peace sign didn't make it not a peace sign.

 

Nah, there has been plenty of self defense cases and sometimes the shooter is found guilty and sometimes not guilty. This is how the system works.

 

If Kyle is found guilty it provides carte blanc to riot and destroy in the future with little or no percussions.. we've seen well that the employees of local government, the police, can be ordered to ignore their duty and allow the mayhem and destruction. some of what we are seeing is some of the anti-Kyle crowd wants to slough off any resposiblity on their part to stop the senseless violence and rioting, they figure that it is the governemtns, and the government's alone responsibility. WE on the traditinal and conservative side of thing beleive we are in part responsible for out environment and well being.. as they say,"when seconds coutn, the cops are only minutes away" and in my case, they are only going to arrive to take the report of mine and my wife's murder if we do not act on our own behalf.. I look at the case in ST Louis of the owner of a house (nice house) defending his property, who knows what would have happened to he, his wife and their property if left to th ewhims of a proven violent and destructive mob?

 

from l;ooking at the evidence.. this one couldn't be nymore cut and dried.. I'll argue the rule and not the exceptions.

 

Your post #155

 

I agree with this. I think that a guilty verdict will give rioters even more inferred power to attack those who are there to help, and render those who are just being good Samaritans into victims because they will not be able to defend themselves out of fear of jail for doing so. Or even stop those who are willing to go into danger to help to begin with.

But, I am one of those who has acknowledged I have given up my right to policing to the police. As such I do believe it is the law enforcements job to stop these violent gatherings to begin with. But when the police do nothing we revert back to a state of nature and someone has to step up...

 

Why all the pre-emptive complaints? Why not wait and see how they rule? Anyone with any faith in our justice system will respect the outcome whatever it may be.

This makes it sound like you think the rioting in Kenosha justified the shootings. If so, then its not about self defense in your mind.