Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Themis]

that's not accurate, nor is it how our legal system works - especially since you will soon admit that you haven't seen all the facts/evidence. Simply bringing a gun to that "protest" is not proof of a person intending to kill someone. Otherwise, everyone else could be charged with attempt or conspiracy to murder.

Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree with you.

that's not how the law works. Even with bringing/possessing an illegal weapon does not exempt him from the right to defend himself. The gun issue would be a separate and it is entirely (and legally) possible to be innocent by self-defense but guilty on gun charge.
So, yes he can use that defense - unless you can prove that he brought the gun with intent to murder those whom were killed. (like if he had been attacked by a mugger on the way to kill someone and ended up killing mugger, he would not be guilty of murdering the mugger).

Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree with you.

This is why your original assertion os flawed. And "perceived" threat is a valid defense in many jurisdictions, do you know if its valid in Wisconsin?

I don't know the law for each state, but perceived should never be enough since it will be used to get away with murder.

valid point, but since you conflate every Republican and Trump rally as a racist event we can dismiss your hypocrisy of thought.

CFR.

For +44 months you guys have littered this board with unfounded and emotional outbursts with the sole intention of inflammation.
Forgive me if i dismiss your claim here as absurd, juvenile, naïve, and drivel.

Not unfounded at all. We can see it by just reading what he tweets and says publicly.

[_Gadianton]

"The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed, misinterpret what is happening, feel threatened and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent"

Right, I have a hard time seeing this go through as full-blown murder.

[_subgenius]

Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree with you.

kewl attempt, and now that we have established that you require a steep learning curve, i will leave it at this (emphasis below is mine):
Wisconsin Law 939.48
Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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 his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself

[_Themis]

Apparently law enforcement doesn't agree with you.

kewl attempt, and now that we have established that you require a steep learning curve, i will leave it at this (emphasis below is mine):
Wisconsin Law 939.48
Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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 his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself

yet they are going to charge him. Maybe you don't have all the facts and that he was committing a crime at the time of the shootings.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, is Icarus going to admit he was wrong about the pede?

- Doc

[_Icarus]

So, is Icarus going to admit he was wrong about the pede?

- Doc

Oh, you're wanting an apology or something? I asked for CFR on the Pedo, I never said he wasn't a Pedo, only that the only evidence for this was a bunch of internet memes at the time. The document dump from the court case proving he was a pedo wasn't even available when people were already calling him a pedo. Are you going to ever admit you were wrong in the dozen or so threads you abandoned, you know, like when you said I had praised communism and then fled the scene when I proved otherwise?

[_Icarus]

A long history of stalking/raping is not how anyone defines pedophile. You nailed it with "adult who is sexually attracted to children", and Rosenbaum checks all those boxes. Ergo, the charge of pedophile is accurate and appropriate.

But this wasn't known to anyone who was calling him a pedo at the time. People saying it were right, but incidentally, not because they actually verified anything from his criminal record. The record I came across online simply said sexual misconduct and no details provided.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’ll take that as a no. We all know what you were doing by questioning whether or not the Leftist pede was a pede or not.

Also, ref your “let’s give Communism a try, why not?” comment, you either deleted or edited that comment. You said it. I know you know it, and you think you’re being clever because you got away with the edit. You’re the one that has to live with your lack of integrity. Weird thing to lie about, though.

Anyway. Just note that Icarus is pathologically incapable of admitting error when engaging him. He’s like a reverse Trumpist and is beholden to just being right more than being right.

Bananapants meltdown in 3-2-1.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

We don't see good evidence that they intended to kill him.

So if I raise a skateboard above my head to swing down upon your skull, you'll insist that there was no evidence I intended to kill you? I was only trying to disarm you right? What if tried to only sink the skateboard just deep enough into your skull to leave you unconscious rather than kill you, but you ended up dying anyway? Will it matter that I only intended to knock you out? I guess you could count it as a COVID death:)

[_Icarus]

I’ll take that as a no. We all know what you were doing by questioning whether or not the Leftist pede was a pede or not.

Again, nowhere did I say he wasn't a pedo, I merely asked for people to back up their claims before smearing the dead. Now you're upset because as usual, you just made a fool of yourself without reading what's actually been said. Instead of admitting you're wrong on this, now you're pretending you speak for the entire forum who collectively read my mind about what I was "doing" by asking for proof.

Also, ref your “let’s give Communism a try, why not?” comment, you either deleted or edited that comment. You said it. I know you know it, and you think you’re being clever because you got away with the edit. You’re the one that has to live with your lack of integrity. Weird thing to lie about, though.

You're lying right now and I don't take kindly to people lying about me, Lance.

The fact is I never once said "let’s give Communism a try," in any context and I already provided my past commentary where I condemned communism in a post that was unedited. You're lying twice about me now. Do it again and I'll make sure you regret it.