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

Again if you want to try and post facts then point to the actual legal facts. here is the WI laws..

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

so yes you can go pointing a gun at someone who is chasing you trying to steal your gun.. thats the law. if you want to argue against that law then go ahead and point to the law that backs up your position.. you have the link

Kyle did not point his gun at the wrong person, he had a fear of assault from the pedophile which is why HE RAN AWAY. The pedophile started the assault and attempted robbery on Kyle he was the first threat, just because someone else jumped in a shot a gun at him does not mean Kyle gives up his right to self defense against the first attacker.. now if you think there is a law that stats that you have to ignore the first threat once a second threat joins in on the attack then go ahead and point to that law.. you have the link

the pedophile has no right to self defense when his unlawful actions provoked others to attack him, as in attempted arson and attempted firearm theft.. Now if you can point to a law that said its legal to commit arson and chase down and steal someones gun then post up the law.. you have the link..

everything you have posted from a legal standpoint factually incorrect.

 

So.... I am right, that even though they were scared,... they were in the wrong pointing their guns at people out of "self defense".

We both know you can't prove that intent to harm. Even the nazi did not think there was such an intent.... since he reacting with pointing his gun at the pedo when he heard gunshots. He did not reacted with pointing his gun when being chased.

 

Because they had no reasonable fear. Rittenhouse did have reasonable fear as he was being attacked. Which is why your argument fails.

When they're yelling insults at you and threatening you while charging full bore at you....yes, you can.

 

Uhh... he wasn't chasing the nazi for the sake to take away the gun.
He did that because the nazi kept trying to put out a fire.

He only attempted to take away the gun, out of self defense when the nazi pointed it at him.

The nazi turned around right on the que when you hear gun shots, and started to point his gun.
These are the facts at hand and you're just ignoring it because the facts doesn't suit your agenda.

 

He did not fear being chased. He feared when he heard gun shots. That is the que when he turned around and started to aim his weapon and assaulted the wrong person.
You're leaving out facts.

The pedo was tossing a half empty bag that fell on the ground on half the distance it needed to fly.... seconds before the nazi heard gun shots.
That's not going full bore. You're making facts up.

 

so Kyle legally put out the arson with a fire extinguisher and then the pedophile illegally attempted to assault him and chase him.. what legal argument are you trying to make here? I mean your doing a great job helping prove Kyle acted in self defense

It is not legal for the pedophile to act in self defense after his attempted arson and assault. the law has been pointed out to you, why are you repeating this over and over when this is not a legal argument?

this is not a legal argument that you have to give up your right to self defense from multiple attackers.

go ahead and post the law that back up your position.. you have the link

 

If you listened to his testimony, that's not what the use of force expert said.

 

You destroy any arguement you might make when you call "the nazi" a fact. Actual Nazis declare themselves... so we've can establish that Ritterhouse is not factually a nazi.. and we can make some presumptions about you... none of which are flattering

 

We should probably stop feeding the troll.

 

You're probably right, but to me at least, it feels more like a collective intellectual beat-down than "feeding".

 

You mean it's like a sport? Well carry on! LOL

 

We can go over this again and again, it remains....
The nazi did not fear for his life when he was chased down.
He feared for his life when he heard gun shots.
That's when the nazi turned around, and started to aim his weapon at the wrong person.
That's is when the nazi assaulted the pedo. Chasing somebody around isn't assault as far as I know.
Since the nazi started the assault, means the pedo is allowed to defend himself.

And I did not make it up. It's on wikipedia, that this is according to the defense team of the nazi...
Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with multiple counts of homicide and unlawful possession of a firearm, and another teen was arrested and charged with unlawfully supplying Rittenhouse's rifle.[11] Rittenhouse's attorneys say he acted in self-defense upon hearing firearm discharge

As explained, the pedo did not start the assault. The nazi did.

There were no multiple attackers, until the nazi killed somebody who tried to legally defend himself.

 

You mean... the experts.. as in the person the nazi found to say what he likes to hear and pays the guy to say that?

And I did not make it up. It's on wikipedia, that this is according to the defense team of the nazi...
Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with multiple counts of homicide and unlawful possession of a firearm, and another teen was arrested and charged with unlawfully supplying Rittenhouse's rifle.[11] Rittenhouse's attorneys say he acted in self-defense upon hearing firearm discharge

 

You know perfectly well where my motivation of calling that nazi, a nazi comes from.

 

not true, he was very fearful of his life which is why he was running away, he figured that running was the best option at that point to get away from the violent arsonist pedophile

most people would.. but that was the point that running was no longer the best option to get away from the arsonists pedophile and his mob of rioting friends when they started shooting at him

1st- that was not the wrong person, he was the first person what was chasing him so that was the original threat.
2nd- HE POINTED HIS GUN AT A 45DEG ANGLE AT THE GROUND
3rd- the gun was not pointed at the pedophile UNTIL the pedo lunged and tried to grab his gun
4th- He could LEGALLY turn around and point his gun at him right away if he wanted, even though he pointed it at the ground
5th- stop lying about the events that happened, you know he pointed his gun at the ground, it has been pointed out to you several times now.
6th- your lie is pointless because again he can legally point his gun at the attacking pedo so you lieing about it does absolutely nothing to help your case and just shows the world you are willing to lie about the events

chasing is an act of aggression, the pedo started it. it turned into assault when he lunged at him and tried to disarm him

Pedo and his friends started the assault by chasing him and shooting at him

nope

Pedo was the first, the guy shooting was the second.. then a ton more after that

 

...Before the 26-year-old, the 36-year-old and the severely wounded individual killed Rittenhouse. Is there a stand your ground type of legislation in Wisconsin? Even if not, there's justifiable homicide.

 

yes we all know why you are doing it. you are on the side of allowing a pedophile the right to assault a minor (at least in this instance) and to try and shift the awfulness that your side is on you have come up with trying to paint him as a nazi, that way your not on the "awful" side of the debate, you're trying to create this false premise that both sides are terrible. The problem is the pedophile is a real child rapist that raped several kids aged 9-11 and Kyle is just a kid you are slandering because you dont like being on the side of a pedo..
If your political ideology is so extreme that you are now on the side of pedos and you dont feel comfortable with that then maybe its time for you to reevaluate your beliefs rather then slandering the other side to make yourself feel better

 

reading this thread, it seems many are confusing a "fact" with an "excuse"

no doubt Rittenhouse has many excuses for killing 2 and injuring another

and for the sake of argument lets say the 2 dead and one injured were/are criminals...

the excuses do not make the facts change

fact...rittenhouse was a 17 year old child with a loaded rifle and had no police training and killed 2 people and injured another

dead is dead and ritenhouse pulled the trigger

fact ...2 are dead and another injured at the discretion of a 17 year old child

rittenhouse should be tried a a child and his ignorance and being a victim of child abuse should be taken into consideration

and the parents and people that allowed him to have a rifle on the streets during a riot should be charged with child endangerment

 

Fact - Rittenhouse was not acting like a police officer and was not trying to arrest anyone
Fact- you do not need police training to use a gun
Fact - you do not need police training to use self defense
Fact - your statement has nothing to do with the legality of the events that night,
Fact- your statement would be considered an "excuse" like you accused others of doing

Fact- 2 dead and one injured due to the direct attack they did towards a person with a gun
Fact(ish)- it takes a special kind of stupid to attack someone with a gun and not think they will defend themselves with it

 

You open with admitting he has an excuse. His excuse amounts to a legal defense to all 3 charges and there is exactly zero evidence of child abuse.

This may shock you, but if you're illegally armed and someone commits felonious assault on you, you can shoot them. So even assuming he will be convicted of the misdemeanor crime of unlawful carry, he still had rights to self defend and the facts of each shooting are clearly documented self defense.

 

of course rittenhouse has many excuses

and of course these excuses will be used as a defense..nobody expects anything less

but not a SINGLE excuse changes the fact rittenhouse was a juvenile with a loaded weapon roaming the streets during a riot

and not a SINGLE excuse changes the fact rittenhouse had NO police training

and not a SINGLE excuse changes the fact rittenhouse killed 2 and injured one..he admits it himself

and not a SINGLE excuse changes the fact rittenhouse was allowed by adults to roam the street during a riot

and the adults do not have a SINGLE excuse for allowing a child to carry a firearm during riot

the adults endangered the life of rittenhouse and the general public ,

rittenhouse was underage and had NO police training

adults should not have condoned a child carrying a firearm during a riot

so if the adults are not guilty of child abuse they are guilty of child endangerment

what is worse abuse or endangerment??

 

None of those lines you've written, individually or taken together and all assumed true for the sake of argument, changes the fact that he was assaulted without cause and legally defended himself in each of the 3 times he fired that weapon.

 

assaulted without cause??

had he not been armed and roaming the streets during a riot i would agree

kinda like a guy playing hockey and then thinks getting checked is against the rules

like i said. rittenhouse was technically a child at the time he committed murder

he best defense ,IMHO is to blame the adults that condoned his action that day and throw himself to the mercy of the court

blame other people for everything and take responsibility for nothing that may have been a mistake

did trump not teach you anything ??

 

you keep bring this up, what point are you trying to make here? Thats not a legal argument for anything so not sure why you keep bring it up. Do you also believe that a woman has no right to protect herself from rape if she has not had police training as well? Its just a bizarre thing to continue to bring up that has nothing to do with anything..

And the best part is he actually has had police training, he was in the police cadet program, not that its the same as joining the police academy or anything, but its worth noting that your point your trying to make isnt even correct. Even if it was it would be pointless because the police training vs no training is not a legal argument for not being able to defend yourself. Although it is another example of you once again not really knowing any of the facts.

I know it has been suggested to you before, but maybe you should actually do some reading about what happened and about the people you are commenting about before replying again.

 

The person who assaulted him pursued him through the streets without legal cause, charged up behind him and began a struggle over the weapon he was carrying. The cause for this was rittenhouse using a fire extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire the man he ended up shooting and others were rolling towards a gas station with people in it. That's not legal cause to pursue rittenhouse through the streets, or to try to have any form of physical contact with him.
Full stop.

His best defense is to stand on legal self defense

Also: I'm not a Trump supporter, please attempt to use your brain.