Great ANALyses of the Kenosha Fiasco

Should he have been there? Probably not, but for the point of this exercise in guilt for MURDER it doesn't matter. A dipshit mother and questionable judgement does NOT mean you do not get to defend yourself later.

Should he have been carrying a gun? After some basic research I *think* he did not violate the law. Not sure though, as I am no lawyer. But, as above, for the question as to his chargeability under the law for MURDER it doesn't matter. Let's say you steal a ding dong from a 7-11, and then 30 seconds later you are accosted in the street and end up shooting someone to save your own life. Does the fact that you shoplifted 30 seconds earlier mean you are also now guilty of murder? Nope. He may or may not have a gun charge on him, but that doesn't matter to the larger question.

I have studied the videos and the best timeline recreations I could find (thanks @GrundleStiltzkin ), and there is absolutely ZERO doubt that he acted in self defense, and met the bar for defense of ones life. No matter what happened before (unless it comes out he beat the guy with his rifle, which he almost assuredly did not) he was in retreat. You have a duty to retreat and he was fulfilling that duty trying to extricate himself from the situation. Three grown ass men chased him with intent to harm in his mind, and any reasonable persons. Someone fired a round behind him (doesn't matter if it was at him or not he could reasonably believe when being chased by multiple adults that the shot was intended for him), then someone throws something at him (assault with a deadly weapon), and then some now dead moron tried to go in for his rifle. Only then did the kid shoot. You can dissect this a million ways from Sunday but that is self defense and nobody could ever convince me otherwise.

People are trying to make this about if he should have been there (he shouldn't have been at 17), and if he was legally entitled to "defend" the business (doesn't matter), and if he was violating a hunting statute (doesn't matter). Once 3 adult males decided to chase a kid with a gun, fire a round into the air, hurl a weapon at him, and then charge him, all while he was RUNNING away, they gave up all rights to life. He ended it. That's it. Any attempt to complicate that is just politically driven bullshit. If there is a gun charge, prosecute it. If there is a child welfare charge because Mom was stupid, charge it. No issues from me. But murder? That's just bullshit. Period.

I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it.
Click to expand...

Do they have a state law requiring you to retreat? Otherwise you have no legal duty to retreat but it sure looks better in this case! The kid did everything he could to retreat and try to reach the police.
Click to expand...

Here is the link to Wisconsin State Law 939.48: Self-defense and defense of others. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48#:~:text=(a)%20A%20person%20who%20engages,in%20the%20unlawful%20conduct%20to

The legal footnote of the law cites; "While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739."

Also, Wisconsin State Law 939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.... (makes no fucking sense to me)

"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property."

Im glad we can all be educated on Wisconsin State law now.

but @Swaye is right, irregardless of the legal jostling and retards parroting falsehoods about the law its all a mute point. The video clearly shows someone retreating, being attacked, and defending themselves. I dont see how anyone could possibly see it any other way unless their vision is clouded by politics or the slight of hand to say he deserved it on account of what he was wearing type arguments.

 
Laws get re-interpreted all too often. I haven't checked in a while but in Kali it was legal (in the penal code) to shoot people during the commission of rout/riot. You'll be charged with murder now even if it's still on the books.
 
The goal is to remove the right to self defense and the right to defend property. Even if it fails an example is being set that if you defend against this lawlessness your life will be ruined.
 
The goal is to remove the right to self defense and the right to defend property. Even if it fails an example is being set that if you defend against this lawlessness your life will be ruined.
Click to expand...

And if you can find folks that the pop culture mocks or don't care about like chubby pink shirt wearing rich guy from St Louis all the better

If some felon resists arrest and gets shot you don't dare say anything bad about him. But a kid shoots in self defense and his social media and every thought is now fair game

It is the ultimate chilling effect on liberty and it is aided and abetted by the state
 
"I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it." - @Swaye

@GrandpaSankey would like a word. If he can find you.
 
Last edited:
well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.

That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Click to expand...

The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves[/b] on self defense.

Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.

People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.

Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
Click to expand...

it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.

If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.

The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.

The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -

Nothing is clear.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't if it is clear. The issue is whether Rittenhouse did not have beyond reasonable doubt that his life was in danger. If it isn't clear, then he is not guilty. Seems pretty reasonable to conclude that people were trying to kill him, since they told him that, chased him and tried to kill him.
 
crl0tluht5iu.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top