Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

Again. Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

That law is terrible. Makes it easy to claim self-defense in Wisconsin.

Huber’s right to make a citizens arrest is really questionable. First, no felony was in fact committed. Second, the law governing use of force likely applies, since there’s no law saying otherwise. Third, I don’t think there is any evidence that Huber was attempting to arrest R. Did he communicate to R that he was placing him under arrest. As the Aubrey case shows, you just can’t use force on someone and then use citizens arrest as your excuse.

Huber had "a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed." So in your view what is the most likely explanation to what Huber was trying to accomplish? You think it is likely that Huber was trying to kill Rittenhouse?

No, I don’t think that’s the most likely explanation. But it doesn’t matter in terms of what R has the right to do. Like I said above, there are circumstances where both people have the right to use force against each other — even deadly force.

[doubtingthomas]

He did hit him a few times with a skateboard.

Hit him a few times with a skateboard? Where is that video so I can watch it. Nothing in the video clearly contradicts the claim that Huber "approached with a skateboard and tried to grab the gun as the skateboard “(made) contact” with Rittenhouse’s shoulder,"
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

So now a simple touch in the left shoulder is automatically an assault or deadly force? You are more extreme than radical femenists.

[doubtingthomas]

If Rittenhouse reasonably believed G Washington an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Not before Rittenhouse decided to point his rifle at Grosskreutz.

If I provoke you in a way that is likely to lead you to respond with deadly force and you try to respond with deadly force, then I have to retreat rather than respond with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

I am confused because you told me, " Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. "

[doubtingthomas]

Nobody can stop you from being an obnoxious and obtuse fuckwit. You get to choose to be that, and you get to choose to stay stupid. And you seem hell-bent on doing just that.

Your source is a Chicago Tribune article from 2020, more than a year old. If you refuse to look at the trial evidence but prefer to get your news from the Daily Show, you may find some real special emotional support for your conclusions, but it will not be based on the facts, the law, or the information provided to the jury.

Facts? What facts? It is just an opinion, not a fact. You can see in the video that Huber was trying to get Rittenhouse rifle before the skateboard makes contact. Have you ever heard of subconscious arm movements? The jury did not rule that Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard. And it is very clear that Huber did not aggressively attack Rittenhouse with the skateboard.

I watched the video and that is not how a normal person would hit someone with a skateboard.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

You remind me of pancakes/DCP, but more logical. Of course you have never watched the evidence the jury was given, because you are just like canpakes and DCP.

I don't have the time to watch the whole trial. So give me a link.

But it would be irrelevant either way. It is very clear Huber did not hit Rittenhouse hard enough to seriously injure him.

It is funny you keep comparing me to the apologists. Did you know that all of those idiots agree with you that Rittenhouse did not wrong?

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gadianton]

I am confused because you told me, " Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. "

Because pointing gun first and provoking aren't necessarily the same thing. If somebody breaks into your house with a ski mask and you point your gun, you probably aren't provoking.

[doubtingthomas]

give me $5,000.00

Na, get a job.

It is very clear Huber did not hit Rittenhouse hard enough to seriously injure him.

[doubtingthomas]

I am confused because you told me, " Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. "

Because pointing gun first and provoking aren't necessarily the same thing.

Okay. I guess that is just the law in Wisconsin.