That might be a new record of dumb for you. By your logic someone can roll up on someone with an assault weapon, threaten them and then if the person being threatened tries to defend themselves the gunman can legally shoot them. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.
EVERY VIDEO OF KYLE RITTENHOUSE (KENOSHA SHOOTING)
- Thread starter Hawkeyerick
- Start date
When someone is being chased and they hear a gunshot they sure as hell should be in fear for their life. Any reasonable person wold be.
Come on man. This guy didnt 'roll up' on the dudes that got shot. Not even close. They chased him down in the middle of the road while he was running away from them. He didn't threaten them at all until they attacked him. Notice the guy that stopped and put his hands up and wasn't a threat, lived and wasn't shot.
The analogies that some of you use sometimes, let's just say, don't pass even the most superficial scrutiny. Try harder. Much harder. Much much harder.
You are constantly wrong. The guy who was shot in the arm stopped and was putting his hands up when he was shot.
Fluffles nailed it. To some of you if someone says they're in fear for their life they can shoot anyone they want. It doesn't work that way.
Did the guy that got shot in the arm put his hands up before or after he drew he pistol?
He had the pistol in his hand.
Are you suggesting just having a gun is threatening enough to allow someone to defend themselves?
So in your head the guy with the pistol, chased him, drew his pistol, put up his hands, and then got shot?
Huber – armed only with his skateboard – rushed at Rittenhouse and hit him with it before being shot in the chest, stumbling a few paces and falling to the ground.
Another man stopped a couple of feet away, a handgun and a cellphone in his raised hands. A moment later, he moved toward the gunman again, without raising the gun. He was shot in the arm.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...enhouse-shoot-protest-jacob-blake/5675987002/
Interesting. I call bullshit but interesting that is being reported as a possible timeline.
You are a shill. The guy that was shot in the arm backed off for a split second then came back at Kyle and then was shot. He also had a gun.
The one guy to the slight rear that didn’t make a threatening move AND didn’t have a weapon AND had his hadn’t up wasn’t shot. That’s critical.
After they have already made threatening moves towards you with a gun in his hand yes.
And it isn’t simply that he ‘had a pistol in his hand’. He had to draw it at some point Which is a distinction worth making.
No you are the one that’s wrong.
Agree that if someone is in fear for their life they cant shoot anyone that they want. But they can shoot the person threatening their life, you bet.
Nope although in many states that actually is the standard that must be met.
Juries are just people. You know that right? In order to convict the entire jury needs to agree. You know that as well right?
This is wisconsin not san Francisco. You really believe there isn't going to be one person on the jury that watches those videos and thinks self defense? Maybe take a straw poll by reading this thread
With his hands up - as the witnesses note.
That guy was shot at - attempted murder of an unarmed man.
If this guy walks it will be a bigger travesty than the OJ verdict.
Attorney for accused killer Kyle Rittenhouse releases video in self-defense claim
An attorney for suspected militia member Kyle Rittenhouse — who is accused of fatally shooting two protesters and wounding a third at a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin — has releas…
nypost.com
