Has anyone come across individuals who find the actions taken by Kyle Rittenhouse are unjustified and, for all intents and purposes, murder?

Yes

Yes

What were their arguments?

I just got into one and the way the guy limited the facts was...perplexing to say the least

"Why did he show up with gum if not expected to use it?"

The guy used that one

Also used the curfew one

And "he shouldn't have been there to begin with"

The "looking for trouble" was used too

Yeah that one i hear alot

Some people don't think murder is justified, even to stop murder. I'm not going to defend their logic

Even after all that, I presented evidence to back up my points (including some of the law videos) and they still focused on irrelevant and highly limiting points

Your arguments and logic likely don't matter

Even had a current LEO come in who basically made comments that supported what i was saying (though not as direct, he is a LEO after all), and they treated what he said as gospel truth.

I know there are people who think or argue using such fallible points, but I wouldn't have imagined so many.

How do you think his case will go though? I believe he won't be charged.

I dont think we will be charged as well. Im guessing you have been following Robs videos on the subject?

As much as I can when I can. I miss his tuesday videos because of legal classes

Fair. But Rob makes really good arguments on how it can be considered self defense

And I mean looking at the videos kyle showed lots on self control when it came to the people who attacked him.

But personally the self defense claim completely relies on if the death of Rosenbaum is also considered self-defense.

If it is not deemed self-defense then kyle could be on the hook for the other folks he shot as well.

That is true. But homicide requires intent doesn't it?

At least according to statutes

@DeathRhodes666 .


"The law says that if you are violating any crime, self defense doesn't apply. Kyle was out after Curfew, and he was illegally carrying a weapon, so ..."

"Everyone who was trying to stop him was trying to stop an armed man with a gun, who murdered someone (Rosenbaum); does a school shooter get to claim self defense when kids throw themselves at him trying to stop him?"

you can find clips of Vaush and Destiny on youtube, where Vaush makes such arguments and Destiny is shaking his head slowly

(if you are a masochist)

Care to share a link please?

when I saw it, it was a clipped version, I can only find full episode versions right now

That works

I can link one of those if you are a serious masochist

OK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_0R_aiPb-s there seems to be a few such debates, I think this is the one

@realz are you the one saying self defense doesn't apply if you're commiting a crime? Please cite law that says that...

uh I am not the one saying it, I was quoting a standin leftist. But yes, the law does say that, Robert covered it. Lemme see if I can find he law

I think it’s if you’re committing a crime against or in the process of.

And I would argue that a curfew law isn’t a criminal law

What @LrnAshly said

he was carrying

maybe

And additionally what is your basis for saying he was carrying a firearm illegally? He was open carrying

it is interpretable and probably has case law

Robert has said that it would probably not be constitutional to make such an argument either

That’s where we need Rob for some case law haha

I think he said he didn't know offhand

Robert brought up the constitutional response

Oh okay

if blue win, can I get political refuge in US?

He was also retreating/fleeing by most reasonable standards

Take my spot

Who is He that’s retreating or fleeing?

@xephael https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

@xephael I agree

@realz thanks for the link

Appreciate That!

I would say that curfew will be the underlying problem with the argument then.

Rittenhouse has awful lawyers

Technically it may be viewed as a criminal activity due to the curfew violation however the court of jurisdiction would be J&D

> And additionally what is your basis for saying he was carrying a firearm illegally? He was open carrying
@LrnAshly Wisconsin law has a minimum age of 18 for firearms, with a possible exception for hunting, so it is unclear if it was legal for him to carry

If he gets convicted it’s entirely on his defense team

> if blue win, can I get political refuge in US?
@TomWiliam += One Past Last Jedi ?

> If he gets convicted it’s entirely on his defense team
@Gypsy Yea Barnes constantly rails on them

To purchase a firearm or maintain within ones possession?

@LrnAshly the latter

Ouch

I've read the law and the exception for hunting

I dunno what to make of it

Well. I am gonna make the unpopular opinion then that he doesn’t have a claim for self defense

with that logic though, you can find someone in breach of some law after they defend themselves 🙂

Rittenhouse has legal aid offered by GOA (gun owners of america) and they're not exactly dolts

I actually don't mind Destiny too much.

@xephael the guys running it are the covington case lawyers

He's not your typical demsoc, and actually has rational arguments.

He's a libertarian leftist.

@Maw omg I am still listening to this in the background no wonder I am irate

I would argue that had he not been carrying out the crime of illegally possessing a firearm there would’ve been no need for self defense and technically if someone is in violation of the law requiring him to use self defense his violation is responsible thus he is

He has been cast out from the left for his stance on Rittenhouse.

Or rather, specifically the far left.

How was him having the rife illegal?

@LrnAshly I'm pretty sure that people carrying illegally, and use it in self defense, are routinely not charged for murder, but I dunno about WI

@Maw I am not a fan of paternal libertarians

You would be correct. @realz

I don’t say I agree personally

Generally they're talking about burglary being a case where you cannot validly claim self defense.

Since you were instigating the violent confrontation.

but also, I think the constitutoinal argument is strong as well; a state has no right to stop you from your constitutional right to arm yourself, in the case of you defending yourself, which is an obvious right attached to the 2nd amendment, which means applying that law to being armed illegally is unconstitutional

Not general misdemeanors.

@Maw yea that law was written very sloppily IMO

Illegally possessing a firearm is a misdemeanor

it could be interpreted to basically destroy the self defense argument; they merely have to find some law you are breaking at the time

Theft is also another where you cannot claim self defense IIRC.

So if you're mugging someone, etc.

Stealing property, etc.

AGREED on the law being written in a sloppy way and I’m not saying I agree or don’t think he should have responded how he did. Legally I think the defense stance is weak if he was in possession of the weapon and illegally so.

No, it's still not weak.

there are defenses to that

I've listed a few

I do believe convicted felons have won self-defense cases when using firearms.

I would argue that having said gun open carrying may have been an instigating factor for his needing to defend his life