A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: odzeandennz

Which Facebook posts would those be? Link? Were any other militia chased in the manner that rittenhouse was? Link?

Well the videos will show that, the same threats were there, as the analysis alluded to, a gun and a Molotov cocktail in a bag.

The kid wasn’t not standing alone or was by himself.

I’m referring to the Facebook posts on the militia group that enlisted the accused , asking one another when is it ok to shoot etc.

Gotta present everything right. Somehow you found the links defending the kid, and nothing else.

Confirmation bias isn’t worth the argument.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Nyiah

No i hate to say it but this boy will go to jail for a long time. I only hope that he uses that time to reflect on the mistake he made. Bottom line is his actions caused the death of two people who would not have died if he wasn't there with a rifle. His actions directly lead to the death of two people. This is not really different then holding a police officer accountable for his actions. People make choices and choices have efects on others.

Sadly him being 17 its a shame to see him throw away his life because I believe he thought he was doing the right thing. Problem is his decisions caused others to die and even at 17 he needs to face the responsibility of his actions.

Responsibility of his actions? What amazes me these days is the ability of people to try and turn the tables.

But not with me.

That young man was not there to destroy and terrorize. Those "protesters" were. And those of them that didn't agree with the destruction should have left as soon as the first building got torched or they are just as guilty . The three that got shot made the decision to attack another human being, and they got their reward.

a reply to: odzeandennz

The kid wasn’t not standing alone or was by himself.

Except when he was being chased, which is what I asked about. Your comment doesn’t answer what I asked.

I’m referring to the Facebook posts on the militia group that enlisted the accused , asking one another when is it ok to shoot etc.

Which shows intent how? Asking when it’s legally permissible to shoot establishes intent to murder how?

Gotta present everything right. Somehow you found the links defending the kid, and nothing else.

And not only have you not even found anything, you can’t answer the questions asked.

Confirmation bias isn’t worth the argument.

You’re welcome to stop engaging any time you like

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Nyiah


I looked at it from a legal perspective and hes going to jail. In fact he has to could you imagine the riots if he doesnt? but that aside the prosecutor has to show his actions caused their death that wont be terribly hard to do. You can argue self defence all you like but it wont fly by a jury. because everyone is going to say well you bring a loaded gun to a protest then you all ready were planning to use it. Hard to argue they were not when they could simply not have brought loaded weopons and still could have used tazers or bats. This wasnt their property the owners didnt ask them to be there they just wanted to feel important. So these need to be special got people killed/

Maybe, but that doesn't give a group of thugs the right to attack and beat him. Sorry but you can't make the kid out to be the bad guy here.

a reply to: standingwave

Says they looked at it “from a legal perspective.”

Offers zero legal arguments when asked and instead say “he has to go to jail because people will riot if he doesn’t” instead.

Says it all, really.

a reply to: Shamrock6

He was being chased after he shot someone. Your videos clearly say they don’t know how the engagement started.

If someone is asking when is it ok to shoot, you can pussyfoot around it all you want, and find loopholes to justify him going out armed to kill, there was one reason one reason only that kid was there.

Camouflage it how you need to.
Wondering why with an open shut case like this he postponed extradition to face what he did.

Big men own up with or without a gun.

Yes, the Facebook page that recruited him mainly talked about how to engage. Shockingly this wasn’t even considered.

As long as a technicality exists, cowards will pounce. Find all the excuses you need. Find them til the very end!

a reply to: odzeandennz

the Facebook page that recruited him mainly talked about how to engage. Shockingly this wasn’t even considered

That Facebook page was also giving instruction on how to burn the vehicles of the protestors.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Your missing another video then, there is one where he is clearly running away and the guy that got shot in the head threw something at him and chased him in between cars and he got shot, the kid stopped and called the police... not exactly the actions of a guy out to kill people with intent.

a reply to: Irishhaf

threw something at him

What was thrown was a plastic bag.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Oh boy.

He was being chased after he shot someone. Your videos clearly say they don’t know how the engagement started.

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways and claim he wasn’t chased till he shot somebody then say we don’t know how it started. You’re half right at least: we don’t know why he was chased across the parking lot, but that happened before her shot anybody.

If someone is asking when is it ok to shoot, you can pussyfoot around it all you want, and find loopholes to justify him going out armed to kill, there was one reason one reason only that kid was there.

Gotcha. So that explains why all the other people out there who were armed killed all those other people then, since that’s the only reason they were there, right? Was Rittenhouse asking when it was okay to shoot somebody? Link? Source?

Wondering why with an open shut case like this he postponed extradition to face what he did.

To get legal counsel other than a public defender, which I’m sure whatever article you read made note of.

Big men own up with or without a gun.

Big men avail themselves of all available resources at their disposal. You could take note.

As long as a technicality exists, cowards will pounce.

Agreed. They’ll also duck, dodge, and weave to avoid pointed questions and argue about their emotions rather than argue about facts.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ya... right wing nationalists: 6:

Evil blm mob/antifa /dems/ the left: 0

**body counts from confrontations.

a reply to: Shamrock6

That is part of my “other parts” while in possession of a firearm. Something happened in that parking lot to cause him to run. What was it?

But even in stand your ground states, provocation prior to shooting doesn’t grant you self-defense as an excuse.

Now it could be that the kid is golden. It could also be that there is no reasonable answer to why he was there and armed at 17 years old. Again, that would negate self-defense protections.

I pointed out C, because you know that is going to be mentions on every single charge as to how it could have been avoided.

That said, karma dictates they all deserved being shot due to their backgrounds. But that doesn’t exonerate the kid either

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Irishhaf

threw something at him

What was thrown was a plastic bag.

that threw with a quickness for JUST a plastic bag... what was in it?

Still doesnt invalidate the guy was chasing him before he got shot, and he was the first person shot.

a reply to: Ahabstar

If the lawyer I watched is correct there is no requirement to flee in wisconsin, yet with all three times he pulled the trigger he did not till he had no where to go, boy tried to run twice then as soon as he had space he ran again went right to the police.

watch the guy that got shot in the arm, guy paused kid paused then guy pulled his gun and moved forward and the kid shot.

Again not the actions of a guy looking to murder people.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Lemme know when you have an actual point to make in this discussion you said was a waste of time yet you keep furthering it.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Irishhaf

threw something at him

What was thrown was a plastic bag.

that threw with a quickness for JUST a plastic bag... what was in it?

Still doesnt invalidate the guy was chasing him before he got shot, and he was the first person shot.

Whatever was in it. it didn't travel far, only a few feet. Probably someone's sandwiches.

As i said on a earlier post, Rittenhouse went out looking for trouble armed with a rifle. There is no excuses for what he did.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Would he been in the same situation to defend himself if he did not have the rifle? Maybe but maybe not.

He certainly would not had he been at home.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Something happened in that parking lot to cause him to run. What was it?

Don’t know, as stated more than once. He may well have provoked the initial encounter. His mere presence is not provocation any more than anybody else’s presence is provocation, though nobody else was chased down.

Again, that would negate self-defense protections.

Except that it doesn’t under Wisconsin state law. Accepting for the moment that he did something to provoke the attack, his attempts to disengage from his first attacker arguably bring self defense back into play.

I pointed out C, because you know that is going to be mentions on every single charge as to how it could have been avoided.

Pointing out a subsection of a law that is not in play has precisely zero legal merit. Of course the entire situation wouldn’t have happened (to him) if he hadn’t been there. It also wouldn’t have happened if any of the others involved weren’t there, or the riots weren’t happening, or any number of other things.

That said, karma dictates they all deserved being shot due to their backgrounds. But that doesn’t exonerate the kid either

No, the law does. At least as it pertains to first degree murder. I don’t give a damn about karma, which is why I haven’t ventured into that territory.

a reply to: Ahabstar

If people hadnt been rioting and buring buisnesses no militia types would have been there and nobody would have been shot.

Which came first the chicken or the egg, no riot no armed citizens on the street, peaceful protests instead of riots and again no armed citizens on the street.

In many of these type of situations where you have an aggressor(s) towards a person who is armed you have only two choices and I don't see anyone here talking about them.

1. Not to fire and have your gun taken away from you that in many cases is used back on you, or to be beat to death or close to it once the frenzy crowd sees that you are now unarmed to their mob actions.

2. Protect your body and gun at all cost so that #1 doesn't happen. This doesn't mean to shoot anyone near you, but anyone grabbing your gun and anyone ignoring that you are armed and physically attacks with whatever you shoot.

It is about as plain and simple as that...He was never the aggressor and never fired until extreme close range when he had nothing else to do. If he shot at someone at a distance or was the one to move towards them then he would be screwed, but he did neither and so meets all requirements of self defense.