OK... tell me about the deadly weapons they attacked him with? All I heard was a skateboard and a second that was shooting a pistol into the air. He shot three people. And btw, an untrained, unlicensed teenager moving through an angry mob rioting while carrying an illegally acquired assault rifle... who would have thought violence and people shot would have been the result.
I don't think the statement you responded to said anything about being allowed to be there... but it does question his decision-making for being there. Running into an area where rioting was happening, carrying an assault rifle. Its as if he was running into pools of gasoline while flicking a lighter. If he would have only stayed at the building him and the other armed to the hilt vigilantes were supposed to be guarding.
Perhaps we need to review what the word 'intrusion' means then. By saying he is 'intruding', you are suggesting one of two things. Either he wasn't wanted there, or he wasn't allowed to be there. In the case of the latter that's just plain wrong (except for curfew but that's universally applicable). In the case of the former, it may be true, but it has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, so, what @FranchiseBlade said is basically meaningless. The trick is that open carrying a weapon does not justify the actions that people took against Rittenhouse, in particular that of Rosenbaum. You're not going to somehow turn Rittenhouse into the aggressor in this case.
An untrained teenager "openly" carries an assault rifle (illegally purchased, as it turns out) into a riot and shoots three people, killing two.
You can try to frame it however you like, but the end result is that Rittenhouse will (rightly) not be convicted in relation to the three shootings. At best he's going to get a reckless endangerment charge in relation to some shots he fired that did not hit anyone. But that's it. I'm not a Rittenhouse fan or supporter. Far from it, in fact. But you guys need to come to grips with the law and the facts of the case otherwise you're going to be sorely disappointed.
Yes, the law is the problem. Allowing people to walk around with weapons like this causes more problems than it solves. Rittenhouse will probably be found innocent of murder, and some will see this as a green light to strap on their guns and play tough guy.
I framed it with the simple facts of the case. Or did I misrepresent what happened in any way? Oh... I am fully expected to be disappointed. Just as I was disappointed in the george zimmerman case. I fully expect the killer to get away with it completely... to walk free, and to become a cause celebre for the right wing, just as zimmerman was. Our society is becoming increasingly violent, increasingly gun friendly. And the next time it happens the killer will point to this time for his defense. And we as a society will "need to come to grips with it again."
OK, lets break it down. Did the teenager have a friend purchase the assault rifle for him because he legally could not? Did he not go to the riot area to defend a business (along with a group of similarly well-armed individuals, who to the best of my knowledge, none of them shot and killed anyone that night)? Then not stay there but instead run into the riot carrying the assault rifle? And did he not shoot three people with the assault rifle, killing two? Did those things not happen?
We can't keep putting guys with guns out there antagonizing others in public areas or on other people's private property and then allowing self defense. He was somewhere he shouldn't have been with a gun he shouldn't have had. The biggest problem is that it might be he did nothing illegal, which speaks to a major problem with the laws. And no I don't belive at any point he should have felt his life was in danger.
“Intruded” how? The fact that he was underage while carrying a weapon isn’t really relevant to what happened — and the people chasing after him probably couldn’t have known that anyway. I listened to the account of what happened on The Daily podcast. Maybe there are some gaps in my understanding of events. It seemed like it started with someone chasing after him and throwing stuff at him while someone else was firing a gun into the air. Under that circumstance, it is understandable why he might have felt his life was in danger and he was being shot at.
He was being chased down while an unidentified person was firing a weapon (for all he knew, at him). You wouldn’t think your life was in danger in that circumstance? And in the second event, someone was assaulting him while he was on the ground with a skateboard, with an angry mob gathering around him. Again, no danger there?
An aggressive unstable man was chasing him directly after he heard a firearm discharge. You wouldn't be afraid for your life?
You asked what he was defending himself against. I answered how he was under attack from his perspective. You mentioned a pistol fired in the air. But he couldn’t have known that it was being fired into the air and not at him as an aggressive protester was chasing after him. And the guy swinging his skateboard at him while he’s on the ground is straightforwardly a life-endangering attack. I don’t disagree with you. You could also say the same thing about the behavior of the people who were shot and many others in the crowd. A lot of irresponsibility on display.
I am not defending the rioters at all. But none of them killed anyone (to the best of my knowledge). He did (and wounded a third). And will likely walk, scot free and make money from it. The guy with the skateboard should have been arrested and prosecuted for assault. But he's dead.
What all you say is true and I understand why it’s infuriating. But, given all you know of the case, if you’re on the jury do you find him guilty or not guilty of murder? Right now, I’d say not guilty.
This is largely the way I'm seeing how this plays out. A skateboard isn't a deadly weapon in and of itself but hitting someone in the head with a skateboard is certainly an assault and under self-defense rules could be responded with force. The defense will argue that getting hit in the head with a hard object has led to death so that this could be considered a threat where a proportionate response of deadly force is justified. That is one where I think there is sufficient doubt to not lead to conviction. I will continue to reiterate again that he shouldn't have been there. It was very very irresponsible of not just himself but Kenosha PD for allowing him to be there, and to his mom for driving him there. If I was the families of those shot by Rittenhouse I would be suing the Kenosha PD also. Most of all though why Rittenhouse might get off on the specific charges this goes to a point I've made in many cases like this. Putting yourself into danger is a bad idea. Even if you agree that Rittenhouse was the "good guy" he still very well could've ended up severely wounded or dead from going into a situation like that.
I am sure he walks. Young white teenager with a sad face. The full weight of the right win supporting him. He not only walks, but makes money from the killings.
Yeah, good job Clarence Darrow. You totally explained the case in full detail there and did not leave any relevant facts or nuance out to serve your own purposes. A+
